(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Financing education in efficient school districts, a study in school finance in Illinois"

- ; mm. 



FINANCING EDUCATION 
IN r FICfENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 




L I B RARY 

OF THE 

UN IVE.R.SITY 

OF ILLINOIS 

C 
IZe2lf 



Financing 
Education 

in efficient school districts 

A Study of School Finance in Illinois 

FRANCIS G. CORNELL 
WILLIAM P. McLURE 
VAN MILLER 
RAYMOND E. WOCHNER 



BUREAU OF RESEARCH AND SERVICE 
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
1949 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/financingeducatiOOuniv 



c 



TLtzlj^ 



PREFACE 



This volume is a product of several members of the staff of the Bureau 
of Research and Service assigned to administrative research. The direc- 
tor served as chairman of the group and general editor and coordinated 
activities of the staff on the various projects contributing to this manu- 
script. Doctor McLure brought to the staff, in the second year of its 
work, a background of technical experience in school finance research. 
His contributions were of major scope not only in Chapters V, VI, and 
VIII, which he prepared, but in assistance he rendered in reviewing the 
entire manuscript. Doctor Miller was responsible for the studies and the 
preparation of the chapter on school housing. Doctor Wochner prepared 
the basic memoranda from which were written Chapters II, III, and IV. 
Norman Hoeft collaborated with Professor Miller in the preparation of 
Chapter IX. Helen Laverty assisted with general editing, making major 
contributions in the general rewriting of the manuscript for final publica- 
tion. A. R. Munse assisted Doctor McLure in the preparation of Chapter 
VIII. T. A. Phillips directed the laying out of hypothetical attendance 
centers on county maps which is reported in Chapter VII. 

Acknowledgments also are due Dr. M. R. Sumption of the Bureau 
staff and Dr. C. W. Odell of the College of Education, who assisted in 
planning the studies. Karl Massanari assisted with the drawing of the 
sample used in estimating school housing needs. Others who helped with 
the field work and statistical analyses were C. M. Hunt, D. M. Sharpe, 
D. J. Inabnit, Rosanna Shanks, and J. R. Hudgens. 

Dr. R. L. Hamon, chief of the School Housing Section, U. S. Office of 
Education, gave helpful suggestions on standards, cost units, and other 
aspects of the housing study. Dr. E. Glenn Featherston, pupil transporta- 
tion specialist in the School Administration Division of the U. S. Office of 
Education, was similarly helpful with the transportation study. 

Much of the work of the research staff would have been impossible 
without the fine cooperation of county superintendents, local school 
administrators, school custodians and other individuals in the local 
fields where the studies were made. Special appreciation is due Thomas 
J. Higgins and his staff in the Division of Building Surveys and to L. T. 
Johnson of the Division of Drafting of the Chicago public schools. The 
cooperation of several persons in the Office of the Superintendent of 
Public Instruction is most gratefully acknowledged, particularly that of 
Superintendent Vernon L. Nickell, L. W. Hinton, E. J. Simon, J. E. Hill, 
L. J. Black, C. C. Byerly, and J. C. Mutch. 

The Bureau is indebted to the many specialists who received prelimi- 
nary drafts of basic memoranda for helpful comments and criticisms. 

Francis G. Cornell 



BUREAU OF RESEARCH AND SERVICE 

Staff Members who Participated in these Studies 

Senior Members 

Francis G. Cornell, Professor of Education, and 
Director, Bureau of Research and Service 

William P. McLure, Associate Professor of Education 

Van Miller, Associate Professor of Education 

R. E. Wochner, Assistant Professor of Education 

Other Staff Members 
Norman R. Hoeft, Research Assistant 
Helen Laverty, Research Associate 
Albert R. Munse, Research Assistant 
Thomas A. Phillips, Research Assistant 



CONTENTS 

I. Introduction 7 

II. Pupil Distribution, School Districts, and Dollars 10 

III. Background of Illinois' School Finance Problem 35 

IV. Reorganizing School Districts 43 

V. Comparable Units for Cost Analysis 49 

VI. The Combined State-Local Pattern of Financial Support. ... 68 

VII. A Hypothetical Plan of Optimum District Organization 85 

VIII. The Scope of the Transportation of Pupils 90 

IX. School Housing for Larger Attendance Units 108 

Appendix I — Development of the Sparsity Formula 139 

Appendix II — Technical Notes on Developing Methods of Estimat- 
ing School Transportation Cost in the State of 

Illinois 154 



CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 

The General Assembly shall provide a thorough and efficient system 
of free schools, whereby all children of this state may receive a good 
common school education. — Illinois Constitution 

In the United States, public education is the responsibility of the 
governments of the forty-eight states. 

Legislatures usually divide this responsibility between the state 
governments and local school authorities on a partnership basis. 

A considerable body of research and the accumulated experience of 
the states has resulted in a clarification of the principles and policies for 
the best success of such partnerships. 1 

These principles and policies are, in general: 

1. The state creates the pattern for local school organization, gives 
leadership and service, and prescribes certain minimum standards. 

2. The local district school board controls the school program and 
the school budget, and is, in the main, independent of state, municipal, 
or other non-educational external authority. 

3. The local district and the state share the financial support of the 
schools — the local district on the basis of its ability, and the state by 
supplementing local resources to guarantee a minimum level of expendi- 
ture. The local contribution usually is established by a uniform tax rate. 

This last is the now generally accepted principle of "equalization," 
which has evolved since the turn of the century — the principle that the 
states must give all children, on the farm or in the city, rich and poor 
alike, an equal foundation, or minimum education "for the fullest de- 
velopment of individuals and the total good of a democratic society." 2 

The importance of local initiative, local responsibility, and local con- 
crol, however, is emphasized. 

The state guarantees the money for the foundation program, but the 
local school board, within the broad sphere of responsibility delegated 

1 For a recent statement by national leaders and experts in school finance, see 
Guides — To the Development of State School Finance Programs. Washington, D. C: 
Committee on Tax Education and School Finance, NEA, June, 1949, 23 pp. Also, 
for the most recent summary of practices, see The Forty-Eight Stale School Systems, 
Chicago, Illinois: Council of State Governments, 1949. 245 pp. 

2 National Education Association, op. cit., p. 9. 

[7] 



8 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

to it by the legislature, decides how to spend it. For this reason, as well 
as for convenience and objectivity in making allotments, the foundation 
program generally is determined in dollars rather than in specific pro- 
gram requirements, and the money preferably is not earmarked. 

Each district also is responsible — according to its ability and 
its ambition — ■ for expanding and improving its own school program 
beyond the minimum. State aid should be sufficient to give leeway in 
each district for such improvement and to encourage it. 

Illinois, in general, follows these accepted principles, but, like most 
other states, it hasn't yet quite caught up with them. 

Putting the principles into practice is a highly complicated business, 
full of intricate and difficult problems, many of which are not yet even 
well understood. 

The authors planned this book to consider and analyze some of these 
problems. They do not profess directly to offer solutions. They hope to 
help you understand the problems. 

One of the first problems that comes up under any attempt at "equali- 
zation" is the one of redisricting, with which Illinois is now struggling. 
Already we have discovered that simple "consolidation" does not nec- 
essarily, and of itself, either save money or remove the inequities among 
school districts or among larger areas such as counties. 

A consideration of some of the factors involved — specifically, the 
problem of geographic distribution of pupils — provides the orientation 
for the studies which form this book. 

The first of these is the element of cost attached to variations in the 
density (or, to look at it another way, the sparsity) of school population. 
This study shows that even after reorganization, a state finance plan must 
reckon with school costs related to geographic distribution. Costs are 
greatest in areas of low population density. Much of the territory now 
least adequately organized consists of low density areas. 

The problems of redistricting and sparsity suggest two other prob- 
lems — transportation and housing. 

Suppose the whole state were suddenly redistricted, according to the 
very best of modern knowledge, into districts of efficient size, efficiently 
located. 

Would this lessen the need for state financial support of local schools? 

How much would it cost to build the necessary new buildings? 

How much would it cost to furnish bus rides for the children who 
must ride? 

Chapter II presents the gist of the analyses which appear in later 
chapters and in appendices. In it will be found the major conclusions 
in answer to the question, "What would the state finance situation be like 



INTRODUCTION 9 

if all districts in the state were organized on such a basis that none would 
be inefficiently small?" 

When you're trying to solve a problem, you must have the facts. 

The authors hope to provide some of these facts and to suggest some 
of their implications for improving education in Illinois. Subsequent 
studies to be published by the staff of the Bureau of Research and Service 
will be concerned with specific plans for revision of the state school 
"finance system. 



CHAPTER II 

PUPIL DISTRIBUTION, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, 
AND DOLLARS 

This chapter is intended to present in simplified form a few of the 
major ideas basic to the provision of a minimum foundation program of 
education in public elementary and secondary schools in Illinois. Spe- 
cifically, it attempts to describe some of the problems which we would 
have even if we had made markedly greater progress than we have in the 
reorganization of local school districts. It is, for the most part, a sum- 
mary of studies discussed in detail in later chapters. 

State Guarantees Funds for Minimum Educational Program 

In the development of our public school systems, most states have 
followed the practice of establishing local school districts to operate and 
control the administration of schools. Many local districts, however, 
cannot provide the quality of education which the people of the state 
consider acceptable as a minimum. For this reason, states are providing 
a portion of the cost of school programs through central sources. These 
aids to school districts should be sufficient to guarantee a satisfactory 
foundation program of education in every district. The minimum founda- 
tion program is usually defined in terms of a required minimum level of 
expenditure below which no local school unit is permitted to go. 

In the State of Illinois, during the school year of 1946-1947, $183,- 
939,582 came from local district taxes and $25,421,789 came from various 
grants-in-aid to districts from the state and federal government. (See 
Chart 1.) 

While the financing of schools in Illinois is split 88 per cent local 
and 12 per cent state, most of the states have found it necessary to pro- 
vide a much larger proportion of school funds from state governments. 
In 1946-1947, state governments furnished an average of approximately 
38 per cent of the financial support of schools in the nation. 

In most studies which have compared several states on various meas- 
ures of school finance, the State of Illinois has not shown up too well. 
In the most recent of these, prepared for the Council of State Govern- 
ments, Illinois ranks not too favorably in the extent to which the state 
government has contributed to the support of local schools, as well as in 
some other aspects of financing education not to be discussed in detail 
in this report. 1 

1 Council of State Governments. Op. cit. 

[10] 




CHART 1 



Where the 
Money 
Comes From 



STATE 

GOVERNMENT 

$25,421,789 



12 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

Schools Operated Through State and Local Partnership 
The commonly accepted relationship between the state government 
and the local school authority for providing "a thorough and efficient 
system of free schools" is one of partnership. 

State governments contribute to the partnership as follows: 

1. Provide educational leadership to assist local districts to improve 
their programs of education. 

2. Provide funds necessary to supplement local funds to guarantee 
the minimum foundation program to all children and youth throughout 
the state. 

3. Administer certain activities, such as the certification of teachers, 
best handled on a state-wide basis to safeguard the quality of education. 

4. Prescribe minimum standards, such as minimum length of school 
term, below which no district is permitted to fall. 

Local school districts contribute as follows: 

1. Determine the nature of the local program which must be provided 
as a minimum within the framework of uniform state legislation. 

2. Provide, at a fair rate of local taxation on property, enough money, 
along with state funds, for the minimum foundation program. 

3. Determine the aspects of education beyond the minimum, which 
the people in the local districts desire to provide for their children. 

4. Provide, through local taxation, such funds, beyond the minimum, 
as are necessary. 

Small Districts Interfere 

This type of partnership between the state government and the local 
school authorities cannot be brought about if local districts are too small 
to provide good programs of education. The elimination of small districts 
is important because: 

1. They cannot provide learning experiences which can cope ade- 
quately with present-day needs. 

2. The cost of such programs, even though inadequate, is very high, 
placing an undue financial burden both upon the citizens of such districts 
and upon other taxpayers in the state. 

In Illinois, the County School Survey Committee Act, passed in 1945, 
required each county superintendent to hold a public meeting of all mem- 
bers of school boards within the county to determine whether a school 
survey committee should be organized to review district organization. 

More has been achieved in this respect in some counties than in others, 
but whereas in 1945-1946 there were 11,784 local school districts in 



PUPIL DISTRIBUTION 13 

Illinois, in March 1949, there were 5859. (See Chart 2.) 

Although there has been progress in reorganizing school districts, 
many are still too small. As recently as 1947, there were 4103 elementary 
schools with fewer than 16 pupils. If school districts are not large 
enough to provide a complete program of education with responsible 
local administration and control, the partnership plan, which depends 
heavily upon local control and local initiative in school affairs, cannot 
work. 

What Would the Finance 
Picture Be Like With Larger Districts? 

We may accept as an established fact, then, that one important 
method of improving education in Illinois is the elimination of small dis- 
tricts by the creation of larger ones; there are still too many small dis- 
tricts in the state. This volume has been prepared to take a look at the 
kind of financial situation we would have in Illinois if all districts were 
large enough to be satisfactory as responsible authorities for operating 
the -partnership program. 

An ideal district organization probably would require no more than 
a few hundred districts as a maximum in this state. Although some states 
have used the county as the smallest unit for local administration of 
schools, we are not recommending it as the best local unit for Illinois. 
However, we are presenting some facts for counties in the state just to 
see what the finance picture would be like if we were to deal with rela- 
tively large areas instead of the many small districts we now have. 

The Problem of Variations in School Operating 
Costs Which Are Not Classroom Costs 

To guarantee a modern program of education to all children in a state, 
regardless of where they reside, it is necessary to consider some geo- 
graphical factors which have been found to exert considerable influence 
on school costs. These are factors which contribute to the costs unre- 
lated to the quality of the educational program that goes on once the 
boy or the girl is in school. These factors are often disregarded in state 
school finance plans, and they operate to offset measures taken to equalize 
educational opportunity. 

Let us examine, for instance, the problem of operating a school pro- 
gram in a typical school district. Suppose that in this district there are 
500 elementary school children and 250 high school students to be edu- 
cated. 

Some of the pupils in the district live in the urban center. For them, 
the greater part of school costs go directly to the activities affecting the 



■+- 
u 

• MM 

Q 

"o 
o 

u 
CO 








E 



V) 


u 

D 

o 

c 
o 

+- 
ro 
N 

c 
ro 





c 
o 





ro 
N 

• MB 





c 





ro 


C* 






O 


cs 




h- 





C* 


k. 



< 


*5 


X 


CO 





c 
o 

• BM 

-+- 
ro 
N 

• BBi 

c 
ro 

v. 

o 

<D 

o 

V) 

ro 
(D 

>- 
O 





< 






U 



PUPIL DISTRIBUTION 15 

quality of the educational program. In this same district, however, 
there are a number of pupils scattered in the rural area. Providing the 
education for the rural pupils presents a problem. 

Two alternatives appear evident. 

In the first, the district may provide several smaller schools located 
near the children in rural areas. When this plan is followed, the trans- 
portation costs are negligible, but other costs are high, since (1) smaller 
attendance units usually result in fewer pupils per teacher, meaning that 
a greater number of teachers must be provided for a given number of 
pupils, (2) several school buildings must be maintained, and (3) a great 
deal of duplication of equipment occurs. This is the alternative illus- 
trated in Chart 3. 

The second alternative is for the district to transport pupils in out- 
lying areas to the larger central schools. In this event, fewer teachers 
may be needed, fewer buildings need to be maintained, and less duplica- 
tion of equipment occurs, but the cost for transporting pupils to the larger 
schools must be added. This is the alternative illustrated in Chart 4. 

In either case, there are added costs because of factors which do not 
improve the educational program materially. This situation is present 
in all counties of the State of Illinois, and we must consider it as realisti- 
cally in educational costs as we do when we buy the merchandise of the 
businessman and absorb his "overhead" costs or when we buy the farmer's 
produce which involves a "farm-to-market" cost. 

In the State of Illinois, financial assistance is provided from state 
funds for pupil transportation in local school districts. However, some 
districts receive a greater percentage of their total transportation costs 
from the state than others, by virtue of the fact that per-pupil costs 
vary greatly from district to district, and the formula restricts such aid 
to a maximum figure (currently $20 per pupil transported). In no event 
does the state allow more than three-fourths of actual costs. 

This plan of providing aid to local districts for transportation costs 
by separate appropriations, if adequate, affords one way of taking care 
of such aid. However, because transportation is only one of several fac- 
tors involved in extra costs arising from variations in the distribution of 
pupils, this study presents transportation as part of all the extra cost 
elements to be taken into account. There are certain advantages in a 
state aid plan which follows this unified approach. 

How Do These Added Factors Affect the Cost 
of the Educational Program? 

Through the application of formulas which have been developed for 
this purpose, it is possible to determine, with considerable accuracy, the 
effect which these added costs have upon the total school expenditures in 



— ■ 



CHART 3. Many small rural schools mean high maintenance 
costs, low transportation costs 




"% High 



School Students 




Rural Schools 




Elementary Students 
Nearby Town or City 



CHART 4. One large central school means low maintenance 
costs, high transportation costs 




> 



High School Students 





Elementary Students 



Nearby Town or City 



18 



FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 



Illinois counties. 2 These formulas take into account the distribution of 
the student population in the county. When applied, the formulas show 
the additional number of pupils that could be educated with the money 
needed to take care of this pupil distribution. This is sometimes called 
the factor of population sparsity. 

Chart 5 shows this factor in terms of the equivalent additional num- 
ber of pupils which it represents in nine counties. These nine counties 
were selected for illustrative purposes in such a way that they represent 
a wide range of geographic location, degree of urbanization, and wealth 
per school child from among the 102 counties of the state. 

In order to have enough money to educate the actual number of 
school children in each county, it is necessary to figure in the equivalent 
additional cost. For instance, in Will County there are 13,721 pupils. If 
the intention were to provide $100 worth of education for each pupil, on 
an average, it would take more than $100 times 13,721 — more than 
$1,372,100. The sparsity factor for operating small schools or trans- 
portation, or both, represents an additional load which, in effect, is the 
same as 2521 additional pupils, or $252,100. To provide a $100 school 
program per pupil would therefore require not $100 for 13,721 pupils, but 
$100 for 16,242 pupils. Similarly, the complete cost load (not consider- 
ing cost for building construction) in pupil-units for the other selected 
counties is shown in Chart 6 and in Table I. 



TABLE I 

Actual, Number of Pupils in Average Daily Attendance and 

Number Necessary to Allow for Sparsity Factor in 

Number of Pupils, Nine Illinois Counties, 1947 





Actual Number of 


Sparsity Factor in 




County 


Pupils in 


A.D.A. 


Number 


of Pupils 


Total Number 






Per Cent 




Per Cent 


of Pupils to 




Number 


of 




of 


Count as 






Column 6 


Number 


Column 6 


Cost Units 


(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


(6) 


Will 


13,721 


84.5 


2,521 


15.5 


16,242 


Peoria 


19,970 


90.9 


2.007 


9.1 


21,977 


Iroquois 


4,973 


67.6 


2,381 


32.4 


7,354 


Putnam 


787 


66.7 


393 


33.3 


1,180 


Clinton 


2,521 


72.3 


964 


27.7 


3,485 


Fulton 


7,098 


78.4 


1,952 


21.6 


9,050 


Edwards 


1.296 


69.0 


583 


310 


1.879 


Hamilton 


2,206 


70.1 


942 


29.9 


3,148 


Jackson 


5,999 


80.0 


1,497 


20.0 


7,496 















! See Chapter V, "Comparable Units for Cost Analysis." 



CHART 5. Pupil Cost Units in Nine Counties 



No. of 
Pupils 



20,000 



18,000 



16,000 



14,000 



12,000 ■■ — 



10,000 



8,000 



6,000 



4,000 



2,000 



Showing Actual Number of Pupils 
plus number added for 
Sparsity Factor 



Sparsity Factor in Terms of Additional 
Pupils to Educate 



Actual Number of Pupils to Educate 








lO 








(/> 


z 




_J 
_l 


< 

s 
o 


O 

a 
o 


< 

Z 
h- 


z 
o 

1- 
z 


z 
o 


Q 
< 


o 

h- 
_i 

s 
< 

X 


z 

o 

in 


£ 


LLI 
Q. 


CtL 


13 

a. 


_J 


3 

LL. 


Q 

LLI 


< 



20 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

In Table I we see that in all counties this sparsity factor represents 
a sizable relationship to the basic measure of teaching load, the number 
attending. In Peoria County, it represents a 10 per cent cost increase. 
On the other extreme, it represents a cost increase of 50 per cent in 
Putnam County. In the former, school children are mostly in urban 
centers and, therefore, grouped closely together. In the latter, school 
children are more widely distributed. 

This shows how important it is to take the sparsity units into account 
and how the factor affects costs when counties vary so much. While 
Peoria County must add only $10 for each $100 it finds it needs for the 
essential costs of the school program (teachers' salaries, supplies, main- 
tenance and operating costs, and supervisory and other salaries), Putnam 
County must allow $50 for each $100 of effective school spending. 

Chart 6 shows this in another way. It tells us for each of the same 
nine counties how much must be discounted from every $100 to account 
for the non-classroom costs of population sparsity and how much is left 
exclusively for the task of educating boys and girls. For instance, in 
Will County, $100 per pupil in average daily attendance will produce only 
$85 worth of education. Of each $100, in Iroquois County $32 must be 
charged as "home-to-school" costs, just as the farmer accounts for "farm- 
to-market" costs. This leaves only $68 for educational purposes. 

It should be noted that the correction in costs discussed above would 
be needed in areas reorganized into more adequate districts. As a 
matter of fact, similar comparisons for areas smaller than the county 
would show even larger differences. 

The point we are making here is that even if we were to reorganize 
districts into units as large as the county, there still would be great in- 
equities among districts which the plan of state finance must take into 
account. 

It is evident from this discussion that reorganization of districts alone 
does not eliminate differences among districts in conditions affecting 
school costs. The data appearing in Table I and Charts 5 and 6 are 
brought up to date for the most recent available year for all counties 
in Chapter V. 

To sum up: 

1. In no county can we get for strictly instructional purposes 100 
cents on the dollar spent for school current operating costs. 

2. The factor of geographic distribution of children takes up sizable 
proportions of the school dollar. 

3. In some counties this leaves barely more than 60 cents on the 
dollar for the school program. 



CHART 6. How Each $100 for Schools Is Spent 

in Nine Counties 




Remainder for Educational Program 



Cost of Sparsity Factor 



22 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

4. What counties get in dollar value varies considerably according 
to the geographic distribution of school children. 

5. In order to get a true picture of finance per pupil, it is better 
to adjust the pupil count to include allowances for the sparsity factor 
than it is to use a straight pupil count. The following discussion ex- 
plains this in detail. 

6. What is said of counties would be true of districts in a plan of re- 
organization somewhere between the present organization and the county 
unit extreme. 

t. 

The Adjusted Number of Pupils in Relation to 
Property Valuation 

In studies of school finance it is important to know how local units 
differ in financial ability to provide education. This is usually done by 
dividing property valuation by the number of pupils, thus getting the 
valuation per pupil. Property valuation is useful as an index of local 
ability, since most local funds for schools come from taxes on property. 

Although the Illinois Department of Revenue strives to equalize prop- 
erty valuations at 100 per cent of cash value, it is recognized that some 
deviations from this objective may exist among counties. Greater varia- 
tions occur, however, within counties, because of local original assess- 
ment figures and the use of a correction multiplier which is applied to all 
property in the county. When the multiplier is applied to property 
assessed at the extremes, low and high, in relation to other property, in- 
accuracies; and inequities inevitably occur. Comparisons on a county - 
wic e. basis; however, minimize these variations. 

: [There are other methods which might be used for determining ability 
of counties to pay for education. For our purposes we will use the better- 
known assessed valuation with corrections. 

:Chart 7 shows the average amount of assessed valuation of property 
per pupil in average daily attendance for Illinois counties in 1947-1948. 
The bars are divided into two parts. The part at the extreme right is the 
proportionate part of the valuation in each county which must be counted 
in order to take care of these "non-classroom" or sparsity costs which 
we have been analyzing. The left part of each bar represents what is left 
in valuation per pupil after this "overhead" burden is deducted. 

The truest picture of the relative financial ability is obtained by 
counting only the left hand part of each bar, thus excluding the valua- 
tion chargeable to extraneous costs. The length of the left hand portion 
of 3ach bar is determined by dividing assessed valuation in each county 
by the adjusted number of pupils, that is, the actual number plus the 
equivalent number in cost terms to be added for the sparsity factor. The 



CHART 7. Financial Ability of Counties 



WEALTH PEK PUPIL 



COUNTY 



$o 



10,000 



20,000 30,000 



40,000 $50,000 



PIATT 

LAKE 

WILL 

LA SALLE 

CHAMPAIGN 

LIVINGSTON 

MC LEAN 

COOK 

PEORIA 

KANE 

KENDALL 

LEE 

DEKALB 

DU PAGE 

LOGAN 

GRUNDY 

IROQUOIS 

FORD 

MC HENRY 

EDGAR 

WARREN 

DOUGLAS 

WOODFORD 

WINNEBAGO 

KANKAKEE 

ADAMS 

MARSHALL 

MOULTRIE 

SANGAMON 

DE WITT 

MACON 

OGLE 

MENARD 

BUREAU 

STEPHENSON 

MC DONOUGH 

KNOX 

HENDERSON 

HENRY 

MADISON 

ST. CLAIR 

BOONE 

STARK 

TAZEWELL 

COLES 

PUTNAM 

WHITESIDE 

MONROE 

MORGAN 

CHRISTIAN 

VERMILION 

CARROLL 

WASHINGTON 

ROCK ISLAND 

HANCOCK 

MASON 

MERCER 

CLINTON 

WABASH 

RICHLAND 

WHITE 

SHELBY 

MONTGOMERY 

FULTON 

JO DAVIESS 

FAYETTE 

BROWN 

SCHUYLER 

PIKE 

MACOUPIN 

EDWARDS 

SCOTT 

BOND 

CUMBERLAND 

HAMILTON 

CLARK 

JEFFERSON 

RANDOLPH 

WAYNE 

CRAWFORD 

EFFINGHAM 

JERSEY 

MARION 

JASPER 

CASS 

GREENE 

CLAY 

PERRY 

JACKSON 

FRANKLIN 

LAWRENCE 

GALLATIN 

ALEXANDER 

SALINE 

CALHOUN 

UNION 

WILLIAMSON 

HARDIN 

MASSAC 

JOHNSON 

POPE 

PULASKI 



'*SSSS r SSSfS/7SSSSSSSSSSSSSS*Srjr**SSSSSSSS*. 

'ssssssssssssssssssssjr&ss*. 
'sss/sssssssssssssssssJ'rsjm 
'sssssss/ssssssssssssssssa 
'ssssssssssssjrssssssssssjrft 

'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSAX 
'SSSSSS*SSSSSSSSSSSSSS/YSA\ 
'SSSS/SS/SS//S/SSSSSSSSS*M 
•SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSJ* 

■ssss///ss*xf*ss/sss/sssjm 
sss/sssssssssssssssxsss'jm 
sssssssssssssssssssssssm 
sss/sss/s/sss///ss/////— 
ysssssssssysyssssssssss. 

YSS/SS////S/S/SS/S//SSSi 

yssyysyssssyyyssssyysy/\ 
ysssssysssssssssssssssy\ 
yss/s/sss/ssss/ssssss/jl 
fsss/ssssssss/sssssyxsm 
fs/sssssssysssssssssssm 
f/s//ss//s//s/ssss/sysjm 
rss/ssssssssssssssssssm 

f////////SS//SSS/SS/SSM 

rsssssssss*ss/ssssss/s~ 

fSSSS/SSSSSSSSSSSS/SSS: 
fSS*/S/S//S/SSSSS//*/S\ 
rSSSSSSSSSSSSSS/S/SSSjl 
'S/S///SS/SSSSSSSSSSSM 
'SSSSSSSSSSS/SSSSSSS/M 
'SS/SSS//SSSSSSSSSSSS 

r*//ss//s//sss///s/sj\ 
'yyyyyysssssssssssssa 
'syssysysysyssyssyssa 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyA 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyym 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyym 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyym 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/m 
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy/r 
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyj 

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYA 

//////////////////- 
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyj 

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYJ 
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYA 
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYW 

/////////////////- 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.\ 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyx 

/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyya 

syyyyyyyyyyyyyyya 



J 



/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyya 
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy 



/'Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy 
/yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy 
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyya 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyya 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyya 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyx 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyya 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyv 

'YYYYYYYYYYYYYJ\ 

'YYYYYYYYYYY/J 

YYYYYYYYYYYY* 

YYYYYYYYYYYY* 

YYYYYYYYYYYYj\ 

YYYYYYYYYYYYj 

////////////il 
////////////J 
yyyyyyyyyyyy\ 
yyyyyyyyyyyy ~ 



YYYYYYYYYYYS 
/YYYYYYYYYYA 
/YYYYYYYYYYA 
/YYYYYYYYYYA 



/YYYY/YYYYY. 
/YYYYYYYYYY 
/YYYYYYYYYYX 
/YYYYYYYYY/X 
'YYYYY/YYY/\ 
'YYYYYYYYY/W 
/YYYYYYYYYA\ 

'ssss/ssssn 

fYYYYYYYYY/l 
'YYYYYYYYYj- 
'YYYYYYYYY.\ 
'YYYYYYYYYt 
'YYYYYYYYA 
'YYYYYYYYA 
'YYYYYYSYA 
'YYYYYYYY- 
YYYYYYYY 
YYYYYYY.% 
YYYYYY/ 



YYYYYJ 
YYYYYJ 
'YYYYS- 



WM 



L_ 



Amount of Local Wealth (as- 
sessed valuations) per Pupil in 
Average Daily Attendance 

Amount of Local Wealth per 
Pupil Available for Educational 
Program 

Amount of Local Wealth per 
Pupil Necessary to Pay Extra 
Costs Arising from Sparsity of 
Rural School Population 



24 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

right hand portion represents the burden which property valuation in 
each county must bear to take care of the sparsity costs. The length of 
both parts of the bar beside each county shows the valuation per pupil 
without this adjustment. 

It Makes a Difference 

A glance at Chart 7 will show that it makes quite a difference whether 
one uses the adjusted or the unadjusted number of pupil units in analyz- 
ing costs. For example, at the top of the chart, Piatt County has an 
average of $53,225 of assessed wealth per pupil in actual average daily 
attendance, yet only $38,038 per pupil unit. Of the total of 2718 children 
in Piatt County, 2325 are rural children. The conditions under which 
the rural pupils are scattered over considerable territory (sparsely 
settled) increases the per capita cost of these children in an amount 
equivalent to the cost of 1086 additional pupils. Therefore, Piatt County's 
apparent wealth per pupil is $53,225. Its true wealth, the amount avail- 
able for effective educational purposes, is $38,038. On the other hand, 
Lake County, second in local ability, has an average of $26,645 per pupil 
in actual attendance but $24,552 per pupil unit of educational need. 

The apparent ability of a county to finance education is found from 
reading the total length of the bar, including both sections. But the 
sparsity of rural school children in increasing the cost of education has 
the effect of increasing the number of pupils and thus decreasing the 
amount of effective wealth per pupil. Therefore, in terms of the educa- 
tional program that may be provided, counties are actually less wealthy 
than they appear to be from the definition of assessed value per pupil 
in actual attendance. It will be noted that the average amount of 
wealth required to pay the extra costs arising from sparsity of rural 
pupils is not related to true ability of the county. The amount of per 
capita wealth required to pay these extra costs is determined by the 
area and the number of children living in sparsely settled areas. 

The dark portion of each bar represents the average amount of 
assessed wealth per pupil unit in each county. In other words, this 
dark portion of the bars shows the relative wealth of each county avail- 
able to share in the support of any given educational program. It will 
be noted that counties are listed in descending order of wealth per unit 
of need. It is interesting to note that the variation in ability from the 
wealthiest county, Piatt, to the poorest, Pulaski, is from $38,038 to $2728 
per pupil unit. This is a ratio of 14 to 1. 

At a given effort (i.e. at a uniform rate of taxation) the poorest county 
can raise only one- fourteenth as much revenue per unit of educational 
need as the most able county can raise. 



PUPIL DISTRIBUTION 25 

Dollar Amount of State Aid Under Present System 

Let us now take a look at some of the facts which come out in a study 
of Illinois counties using the adjusted pupil unit as a measure of educa- 
tional load in counties. 

It has already been noted (Chart 7) that the counties have been 
arranged from wealthiest to poorest in terms of assessed valuation per 
adjusted pupil. Therefore, if state aid per pupil (adjusted) has an equal- 
izing effect, there will tend to be more state money per pupil unit in 
counties lowest in the chart. The figures are as follows for the nine 
sample counties: 





State Aid per 


County 


Adjusted Unit 


Will 


S27.62 


Peoria 


29.84 


Iroquois 


23.85 


Putnam 


25.50 


Clinton 


22.29 


Fulton 


27.98 


Edwards 


18.87 


Hamilton 


39.43 


Jackson 


44.62 



Jackson and Hamilton Counties, the two poorest counties in terms of 
valuation per adjusted pupil unit, received more than wealthier counties 
above that mark. For the other seven counties, however, the pattern of 
what share the state has in the cost of operating schools is very irregular. 

The existing system of grants of state aid to schools in Illinois pro- 
vides funds directly to local school districts. Some of these are ''flat 
grants," that is, flat amounts per pupil in average daily attendance. Addi- 
tional sums are made available to about one-half of the districts in the 
state according to their financial ability. There are also grants for the 
transportation of pupils and vocational education. This plan is justi- 
fiable in terms of the best experience which states have had in state 
financing of schools. When the unit used is unadjusted average daily 
attendance, however, the pattern of state contribution is not a smooth 
progression from wealthy to poor counties. 

From the standpoint of the desirable goal of large units of administra- 
tion locally, and taking into account the kinds of statistical cost units 
which reflect the true picture of financial needs in districts, it is evident 
that the existing system of distribution of state funds achieves ends other 
than guaranteeing a minimum program of education. In addition to the 
comparatively larger sums going to wealthier counties because of the flat 
grant feature of the state finance system, the state is now allocating to 
these wealthy areas large sums of money on an equalization basis because 



26 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

of the existing system of district organization. That is to say, under the 
system which permits relatively wealthy sections of the state to be split 
up in a myriad of tiny administrative units, within a relatively wealthy 
area may be found school districts which must draw upon the assistance 
of the state under the present system. Under reorganization which would 
result in districts more nearly approximating the county in size, the state 
could concentrate its share in contributing to the equalization of educa- 
tional opportunity in the poorer areas, it being not necessary to send, as 
it now does, large sums of equalization monies into the relatively finan- 
cially able counties of the state. 

Dollar Amount of Local Contribution 

In a program of public education which is thought of as a "partner- 
ship" program involving the joint financial support of state and local 
government, it is important to examine the local as well as the state 
share of cost. 

An appropriate method of comparing local expenditures is in relation 
to variations in local taxpaying ability. The upper bar for each county 
in Chart 8 shows what each county spent per adjusted pupil unit from 
local sources in 1947-1948. 

Since the counties are arranged from highest down to lowest in 
assessed valuation per pupil unit, it is not surprising that the local ex- 
penditure bars tend to be longest for counties at the top of the chart. A 
given rate of taxation yields more revenue in counties with more prop- 
erty valuation. 

The trend is not a regular one, however, because some counties exert 
a greater tax effort than others. This may be seen in Chart 8 by com- 
paring the actual expenditure bars with those representing a constant tax 
rate in all counties. The lower bars at the right of each county in the 
chart represent the amounts per pupil unit each county would have spent 
from local funds if each had spent at the same rate of effort. This 
"average rate" of effort is equivalent to a tax rate of 95 cents per $100 
on assessed valuation. The latter bars, therefore, represent what might 
be expected in the way of local expenditure for schools if: 

1. All counties would levy at about the same rate as the present 
average, and 

2. Proper allowance were made for the sparsity factor. 

The tables presenting the statistics on which the foregoing analysis 
was based appear in Chapter V, along with an additional analysis of the 
inequalities which are found to exist, using a unit of educational need 
which has been discussed in treating areas of the state as large as counties. 



CHART 8. Local Expenditures per Pupil 



COUNTY 



Unit, 1947-1948 

EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL UNIT 



*0 



80 



I60 



PIATT 

LAKE 

WILL 

LA SALLE 

CHAMPAIGN 

LIVINGSTON 

MC LEAN 

COOK 

PEORIA 

KANE 

KENDALL 

LEE 

DE KALB 

DU PAGE 

LOGAN 

GRUNDY 

IROQUOIS 

FORD 

MC HENRY 

EDGAR 

WARREN 

DOUGLAS 

WOODFORD 

WINNEBAGO 

KANKAKEE 

ADAMS 

MARSHALL 

MOULTRIE 

SANGAMON 

DE WITT 

MACON 

OGLE 

MENARD 

BUREAU 

STEPHENSON 

MC DONOUGH 

KNOX 

HENDERSON 

HENRY 

MADISON 

ST. CLAIR 

BOONE 

STARK 

TAZEWELL 

COLES 

PUTNAM 

WHITESIDE 

MONROE 

MORGAN 

CHRISTIAN 

VERMILION 

CARROLL 

WASHINGTON 

ROCK ISLAND 

HANCOCK 

MASON 

MERCER 

CLINTON 

WABASH 

RICHLAND 

WHITE 

SHELBY 

MONTGOMERY 

FULTON 

JO DAVIESS 

FAYETTE 

BROWN 

SCHUYLER 

PIKE 

MACOUPIN 

EDWARDS 

SCOTT 

BOND 

CUMBERLAND 

HAMILTON 

CLARK 

JEFFERSON 

RANDOLPH 

WAYNE 

CRAWFORD 

EFFINGHAM 

JERSEY 

MARION 

JASPER 

CASS 

GREENE 

CLAY 

PERRY 

JACKSON 

FRANKLIN 

LAWRENCE 

GALLATIN 

ALEXANDER 



UNION 

WILLIAMSON 

HARDIN 

MASSAC 

JOHNSON 

POPE 

PULASKI 



240 



320 



?400 




in' ■n«i«i»«ii» 



Sff 



- 



\Wn((<{((< 



K-. 



■m 



»;wmi— lill 
mmmmmm 



jmmmmmmittmm 



mmma m 



mmmmmm 



mm 



I 







mmmmmm 



mmmmmm* 



mmmmmmmmmmmmm 



■w mmm n ■ 



■ uhMuh 

mmmm 



-- 



mmmmmm 



mm 



■ ■■ 



■n 



urn I in -, 



■inn i —i— Ht 



WMm 




J 



Actual Expenditure per 
Unit from Local Taxes 



Pupil 



Amount from Local Taxes at 
State Average Rate of 95 Cents 
per $100 of Assessed Valuation 



28 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

The analyses show that, though it might tend to shift the direction of 
state aid to certain parts of the state, the reorganization of school districts 
into units even as large as counties would not overcome inequalities and 
inequities in financial status of districts. The implication for state finance 
is twofold: 

1. Even with reorganization which will tend to overcome many in- 
equalities, state aid is necessary to supplement contributions possible to 
local units, and 

2. With large units of administration, funds available from state 
sources can be used to greater efficiency in reaching those areas in which 
assistance is most greatly needed. 

The Combined State-Local Pattern 

The way the state's contribution and the local contribution combine 
to support schools is shown in Chart 9. The bars at the left of the chart 
are the same as the "average rate" bars in Chart 8. They show the 
present local expenditure — smoothed to show how it would be if the 
local rate of effort in each county were the average. The bars at the right 
represent state aid. These, combined with the bars at the left, show the 
expected total expenditure per pupil unit with: 

1. State aid as it was in 1947-1948, and 

2. Local expenditure which might be expected at 1947-1948 average 
local tax rates. 

This, of course, does not take into account any additional effort which 
local units might choose to exert by additional levies on local real estate. 

Chart 9 is useful in observing certain things about the existing pattern 
of state-local support of schools in Illinois. 

In the first place, we see that the amount of funds from local sources 
(left hand bars) is considerably greater than that from state sources 
(right hand bars.) 

In the second place, when local areas as large as the county are con- 
sidered, the distribution of state funds does not produce a great amount 
of equalization. Though there is justification for such an allocation so 
that all counties — rich and poor alike — receive some of the state funds, 
larger proportions of state funds would be needed to bring up expendi- 
tures in poorest counties. 

In the third place, the effective minimum program now supported in 
the state is under $100 per unit. The combined bars in Chart 9 for Pul- 
aski County total only $87. However, this system of reckoning figures 
the local contribution at the present average rate of taxation (95 cents 



CHART 9. Local Taxing Ability of Counties 

Compared with Amount of State Aid 

Received, 1947-1948 



COUNTY, I 



'100. 



>200. 



'300. 



PIATT 

LAKE 

WILL 

LA SALLE 

CHAMPAIGN 

LIVINGSTON 

MC LEAN 

COOK 

PEORIA 

KANE 

KENDALL 

LEE 

DE KALB 

DU PAGE 

LOGAN 

GRUNDY 

IROQUOIS 

FORD 

MC HENRY 

EDGAR 

WARREN 

DOUGLAS 

WOODFORD 

WINNEBAGO 

KANKAKEE 

ADAMS 

MARSHALL 

SANGAMON 

MOULTRIE 

DE win 

MACON 

OGLE 

MENARD 

BUREAU 

STEPHENSON 

MC DONOUGH 

KNOX 

HENDERSON 

HENRY 

MADISON 

ST. CLAIR 

BOONE 

STARK 

TAZEWELL 

COLES 

PUTNAM 

WHITESIDE 

MORGAN 

MONROE 

CHRISTIAN 

VERMILION 

CARROLL 

WASHINGTON 

ROCK ISLAND 

HANCOCK 

MASON 

MERCER 

CLINTON 

r w M 

WHITE 

SHELBY 

MONTGOMERY 

FULTON 

JO DAVIESS 

FAYETTE 

BROWN 

SCHUYLER 

PIKE 

MACOUPIN 

EDWARDS 

SCOTT 

BOND 

CUMBERLAND 

HAMILTON 

CLARK 

JEFFERSON 

RANDOLPH 

WAYNE 

CRAWFORD 

EFFINGHAM 

JERSEY 

MARION 

JASPER 

CASS 

GREENE 

CLAY 

PERRY 

JACKSON 

FRANKLIN 

LAWRENCE 

GALLATIN 

ALEXANDER 

SALINE 

CALHOUN 

UNION 

WILLIAMSON 

HARDIN 

MASSAC 

JOHNSON 

POPE 

PULASKI 



m 



y:::-:- 



I 




Amount of Local Funds per Pupil 
Unit at Average Tax Rate of 95 
Cents per $100 of Assessed Val- 
uation 



Amount of State Aid per Pupil 
Unit Received, 1947-1948 






30 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

per $100 full valuation), which is about all that is reasonable to expect 
from any county. In other words, if the people in Pulaski County were to 
have funds from local sources to use in excess of a minimum program, not 
all of the local expenditure bar in Chart 9 should be required of Pulaski 
County as a qualifying rate for the minimum program. The real mini- 
mum program, one which leaves leeway for local support beyond the 
minimum, is therefore considerably less than $100. It probably is little 
more the $47 per unit in state aid which is received on the average in this 
county. It is doubtful that the people of the state are willing to accept a 
minimum as low as this. A satisfactory minimum expenditure for modern 
educational programs is probably near $200 per pupil unit. 

Finally, if it is desired in Illinois to: 

1. Increase financial support for education to provide a partnership plan of state 
and local financing of a higher minimum program than that now assured, 

2. Anticipate an organization involving large districts, more like counties than 
our smallest districts today, 

3. Leave some taxing power in the hands of local units above that required for 
this minimum, 

4. Avoid additions to the already overburdened tax on property, 

5. Take into consideration the sparsity or "farm-to-market" cost of schools, 

It will be necessary to: 

1. Increase state funds for schools, 

2. Hasten reorganization of school districts, 

3. Channel relatively larger amounts of funds into poorer areas, even though 
additional funds might be needed in wealthy areas, too, 

4. Seek sources of revenue other than property tax revenue, 

5. Use measures of cost and expenditure in the finance plan which take into 
account marked variations in the effects of sparsity, or establish separate means of 
improved financing of transportation and/or high costs of small schools. 

A further analysis of the state-local finance pattern based on large 
units, such as the county, appears in some detail in Chapter VI. In that 
chapter it is shown that to finance a genuine foundation level of $160 
per unit based upon a local contribution of 50 cents per $100 of assessed 
valuation would require $76 million of state aid annually for equalizing 
current expenditures alone. 

Costs of Transportation 

Obviously, one major and perennial cost of the sort of redistricting 
we have discussed would be for getting the children to and from the 
new, larger schools. 

This cost has been taken into account in the sparsity analysis — but 
what would it be in actual dollars (1) for each district? (2) for the entire 
state? 

Purely to give us a working basis to study this and other problems, we 



PUPIL DISTRIBUTION 31 

imagined the Illinois school system reorganized so that each county was 
a school district. Then on a map of each county we established hypothet- 
ical "attendance districts" :! located thus: At least one high school and 
one elementary school centrally located in each county, and others where 
a high school enrollment of 700 or an elementary enrollment of 300 would 
justify it, all located so that every pupil would live within 45 minutes 
distance by school bus. 

It is clear that among these hypothetical districts, costs would vary 
according to how widely the children were scattered. For example, nor- 
mally it would cost more to transport 100 children scattered over 50 
square miles of territory than it would cost if they were scattered over 
10 square miles. Then, too, costs would vary again, although generally 
to less extent, according to the way children were scattered over the rural 
territory of the district. For example, it might cost more to transport 
100 children scattered over 100 square miles of territory under circum- 
stances where they live close together on few roads, than under other 
conditions where they lived about an even distance apart and scattered 
on many roads. 

In other words, the way children are scattered as well as the density 
of the district's school population must be taken into account. 

One way we have devised to do this is to lay out a district in one- 
mile bands, 4 outside a center block of walking-distance radius around the 
school. No mileage is counted within this block. Homes within the first 
mile-wide band around the center block are counted, and the number 
multiplied by two (for two miles from the school) . Homes within the next 
outer band likewise are counted, and their number multiplied by three, 
and so on to the limits of the district. 

By this procedure we were able to get the total number of "home-to- 
school" miles in each district. 

Questionnaires were sent to 100 unit-district schools asking: capacity 
of buses used; purchase price of each bus; annual charges for deprecia- 
tion, insurance, and storage; cost of drivers' salaries, gas and oil, and 
maintenance and repair; total annual mileage; and total cost per mile. 
Answers were received from 69 districts. 

As would be expected, there was a very wide range in these costs. We 
concluded, however, that the median costs 5 per bus mile for buses of 
different capacities could be used as a reasonable basis for estimating the 
potential cost in 31 sample districts. 

Theoretical bus routes were laid out on maps of each of the 31 dis- 
tricts to carry all rural school children to the largest city or village in 

3 See Chapter VII and Chart 16. 
" See Chart 19, Chapter VIII. 
6 See Table XI, Chapter VIII. 



32 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

the district, to provide door-to-door pickup, and to take no child more 
than 45 minutes to get to school. The total annual bus mileage for 180 
days was figured, and the total cost for each hypothetical district was 
computed by using the actual median costs per bus mile in 1948. 

These estimates varied with each district, all the way from a low of 
$5691 (Auburn) to a high of $37,075 (Paris). 

Using the data accumulated in these 31 district studies, we worked 
out a formula which can be applied to any district to estimate what 
school transportation would cost under the hypothetical district organiza- 
tion described. 

This is the formula: 

X ± = 3.0160X 2 -4- $5436, where X 1 is the estimated cost in dollars, 
and X 2 is the sum of home-to-school miles, as described earlier. 

Applying this formula to every hypothetical district in all of Illinois, 6 
we reached the estimate that to transport every child who lives beyond 
walking distance to a properly located school of efficient size would cost 
the people of the state about $17.5 million a year. 

It should be understood clearly that this is only an estimate, and that 
it might vary as much as a couple of million dollars either way ; but it is 
sufficiently accurate to give us a fair idea of what we may count on in 
the future in terms of 1948 prices. 

Costs of Building 

It becomes apparent immediately that to close thousands of tiny 
schools all over Illinois and to send every child to a properly sized school 
centrally located would require a lot of new school building — at a cost 
roughly and conservatively estimated at about $425 million, or nearly 
half a billion. 

However, even to provide adequate modern buildings under the pre- 
sent district setup would be a great expense, and this, of course, would 
be absorbed and included in the hypothetical county-district reorganiza- 
tion on which these studies are based. 

To estimate what the state would need in new buildings under such 
a reorganization and what it would cost, we made specific field studies 
of 21 sample counties, selected to be as representative as possible in ratio 
of rural and urban population. 

We assumed that if we knew the number of school-age children in 
each county and the number for which school facilities are now avail- 
able in the hypothetical centers that the difference would be the number 
for whom new building would be required. 

6 See Table XIV, Chapter VIII. 



PUPIL DISTRIBUTION 33 

The following standards were assumed as acceptable for a modern 
school program: 

1. Each elementary school should have a five-acre site, with one 
additional acre for each 100 pupils — that is, a school for 300 children 
should have eight acres. 

2. Each high school should have 10 acres, with one additional for 
each 100 pupils — that is, a school of 700 should have 17 acres. 

3. Buildings should include 30 square feet of classroom space for 
each pupil, and the same amount of non-classroom space, such as librar- 
ies, auditoriums, cafeterias, health services, and offices — with gym- 
nasiums in addition. 

In the 21-county sample survey, we studied 325 buildings in the hypo- 
thetical centers designated — all the buildings now available except one- 
room buildings and those of frame construction. We interviewed county 
superintendents as to other available facilities which might make alter- 
native centers. The number of acres in each site, the possibilities of 
expansion, the number and size of classrooms, and the floor areas of the 
buildings and of gymnasiums were computed in terms of the number of 
pupils for which they were adequate. 

Using these data, we established a ratio to estimate the total state 
needs for the 101 counties outside Cook County, for which a separate 
estimate was made. 

The results showed that less than one-third of the children of school 
age in Illinois would have adequate school sites to meet modern stand- 
ards. Additional acreage would have to be acquired for more than two- 
thirds of them. 

They showed that only about three-fifths of the children would have 
adequate gymnasium space, but that nearly three-fourths of them would 
have other-than-classroom facilities (such as libraries, cafeterias, audi- 
toriums, and offices). 

Or to put it another way: Of the 739,432 school-age children in the 
101 counties, 533,313 would need new sites, 305,867 would need new 
classrooms, 345,505 would need new gymnasiums, and 196,901 would 
need new other-than-classroom accommodations. 

This was all outside of Cook County, but about 40 per cent of all 
the school-age children in the state live in Cook County. The estimate of 
the Chicago schools' Division of Building Surveys on site needs was 
accepted. It called for 773 acres for $3,045,000, plus four athletic fields 
at $500,000 each, or a total of $5,045,000. A separate study made by our 
survey group estimated that Cook County needs extra classrooms for 
90,261 children. 



34 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

Added to the estimate for the 101 other counties, this means that 
under our hypothetical attendance district pattern, Illinois would have to 
build new classrooms for 396,128 pupils, or well over a third of a million. 

What would it cost to buy all that needed new land and build all 
those needed new buildings? 

Translating the needs of 533,313 pupils into acres, it was estimated 
that the 101 counties outside Cook County would need to buy 8479 acres, 
which at $3000 an acre would be $25,437,000. And adding the $5,045,000 
for Chicago gives a total of $30,482,000 that it would cost to buy the 
additional sites that would be necessary. 

Because building costs differ so greatly with place and time, it was 
difficult to reach a satisfactory estimate for the state. But using the 
conservative figure of $1000 per pupil, the needed buildings would cost 
$396,128,000. 

Adding the estimated costs of sites, $30,482,000, and of buildings, 
$396,128,000, we get a total of $426,610,000, the amount it would cost to 
provide adequate school housing for the state under our hypothetical 
county-district program. 

In addition to this original capital cost, annual maintenance costs of 
repair, alteration, and replacement also would have to be provided. 

At present, school housing in Illinois (as in most states) is financed 
by local districts, usually by special levies and the sale of bonds. 

But it is clear that no program of such magnitude as just outlined 
ever is likely to be put into effect by local district initiative. It would 
require state leadership, state organization, and probably substantial 
state financing — perhaps on somewhat the same partnership basis be- 
tween state and district as already has been adopted for operating the 
schools, once they are built. 

These are problems requiring a great deal more study and understand- 
ing before any decisions or final solutions can be reached. This book 
offers the beginnings of such study and, we hope, a start toward better 
understanding. 



CHAPTER III 

BACKGROUND OF ILLINOIS' SCHOOL 
FINANCE PROBLEM 

Illinois' school finance system is deeply rooted, and many of today's 
problems result from the need to gather a twentieth-century harvest from 
nineteenth-century roots — a process which requires some very expert 
pruning and grafting. 

Yet the original planting was sound and democratic, and as we face 
the one big problem which embraces most of the others today, the problem 
of a true statewide equalization on a minimum base, it is interesting to 
examine those original roots. 

It is curiously interesting to realize, for example, that the Illinois pub- 
lic school system originated with federal land grants 1 made 40 years be- 
fore the General Assembly passed the first free school law in 1825 — made 
when Congress in 1785 reserved the sixteenth section in each original 
township in all the Northwest Territory for the support of schools. In 
Illinois these grants amounted to 996,320 acres. 

The lands were granted directly to the inhabitants of the township for 
the support of education within it and were controlled and managed by 
local land control officers. 

There in the very beginning, you have the dual function of central 
support and local control which is a part of today's philosophy. Also 
there you can identify the root, no doubt once sound and vital, of the 
surviving township treasurer-and-trustees system which for more than 35 
years has been recognized as deadwood sorely in need of pruning. 

The federal government made other large grants of both land and 
money to support education in Illinois: 121,629 acres of salt lands in 
1818, more large land grants, not earmarked for education but profitable 
to it, in 1841 and 1850, $613,362.96 paid by the federal treasury into the 
Illinois Common School Fund between 1820 and 1860, and $335,592.32 
allocated to Illinois schools under the Federal Surplus Revenue Act of 
1837. 

The waste of these early federal resources which might have proved 
so rich an investment for the public schools of today is sadly described 
by Weber. 2 Both the federal monies and the funds from the sale of the 
land "were deposited in the state treasury, only to be borrowed by the 
state to construct roads and canals. . . . The fund is a mere myth." All 

'Weber, O. F. The Problem of School Organization and Finance in Illinois. 
University of Illinois Bulletin. Urbana, Illinois: October 18, 1938. pp. 32-33. 
2 Ibid. 

[35] 



36 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

there is left of it is $57,000 a year in interest, still regularly appropriated 
to the schools and paid out of tax income. 

Most school support in Illinois (as in nearly all other states) now 
is from local taxation. In 1946-1947 it was 88 per cent 3 from local 
sources, and only 12 per cent from state and federal combined. 

We think of this local support as traditional and historical, which 
makes it peculiarly interesting to consider that the first free school law in 
Illinois provided that $2 out of each $100 of state treasury receipts be 
appropriated for free schools. Even though there is no evidence 4 that any 
such money ever was appropriated, and the act was repealed four years 
later, in 1829 it was an interesting precedent. 

It also is interesting to note that in 1856, nearly 100 years ago, the 
state contributed about two-thirds of the total expenditures for public 
schools 5 (as compared with one-eighth 90 years later), a proportion never 
equalled since. 

From 1855 to 1873 a state-wide two-mill property tax was levied for 
state aid to schools, and collections were from $600,000 to $900,000 an- 
nually, amounts which provided about 67 per cent of the total costs of 
schools in the state in 1856, but only 13 per cent by 1873. The proportion 
of state to local funds never has varied greatly during the 75 years since 
that. In 1873 the law was changed, and from 1873 to 1910, inclusive, the 
General Assemblies regularly appropriated $1 million annually for school 
aid, plus the $57,000 interest which was (and still is) an odd little sou- 
venir of early federal encouragement of public schools in Illinois. 

Since 1910, state school aid appropriations have increased rapidly. 6 
The state-wide property tax continued as the main source of school funds 
until 1934. Since then, the State Retailers' Occupation Tax (two per cent 
sales tax) provides the common school fund. Special aids do not come 
from the school fund but from the general revenues, as was the case with 
the recent $6 per pupil emergency grant. 

For 1945-1947 the 64th General Assembly appropriated $54,929,818 
to aid the state's public schools — $44,087,300 to the common school 
fund; $10,842,516 to special aids. 

For 1947-1949 these figures were increased to $82,178,909, with $65,- 
653,000 for the common school fund, $16,525,909 for special aids. 

For 1949-1951 state aid was increased to $126,509,147, with $100,- 
319,000 for the common school fund and. $26,190,147 for special aids. 

The State of Illinois offers three types of aid to local school districts: 

3 See Chapter II. 

4 Weber, op. cit., p. 49. 

5 School Finance and Tax Commission. State Support of Public Education in 
Illinois. Springfield, Illinois: March, 1947. p. 36. 

" Ibid., p. 99. 



BACKGROUND OF FINANCE PROBLEM 37 

general aid, equalization aid, and special aids. For 50 years, from 1873 
to 1923, general aid was distributed to all schools in the state simply 
"in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in each county, under 
the age of 21 years." 

In 1923 the following so-called "budget-plan" 7 was devised: 

a. 70 cents for each teacher-school-day. 

b. For each week, not exceeding 36 weeks, 

$2.50 per teacher, normal graduate or equivalent. 

$1.00 per teacher, 36 weeks normal training or equivalent. 

$0.50 per teacher, 18 weeks normal training or equivalent. 

c. One and one-half cents per pupil-day attendance. 

d. Special aid to weak districts, per teacher-school-day allowance graduated 
according to assessed valuation: 

$25,000 or less, $2.00. 
$25,000 to $30,000, $1.50. 
$30,000 to $35,000, $1.00. 
$35,000 to $40,000, $0.50. 

e. An additional $100 to each one-room elementary school district employing a 
normal graduate and operating school nine months. 

This was conscious effort on the part of the state to encourage the 
raising of standards (by offering "reward for effort") and to equalize 
school opportunity (by "special aid to weak districts"). 

Equalization 

This 1923 law was the first official recognition in the state of the 
equalization principle. But according to Perrin, 8 it didn't work. He re- 
ports, "The effects of the law of 1923 for 12 representative counties . . . 
indicate that the poorer counties having the greater need of special equal- 
ization aid, suffered the greater reductions . . . made the greater effort 
to support schools, and maintained fewer small schools than the wealthier 
counties." 

Illinois legislators have been wrestling ever since with the problem 
of finding some equalization formula that would truly equalize — and it 
still eludes them. Their second try was in 1927, when a simple flat grant 
of $9 per pupil was established for all schools, supplemented by an equal- 
ization minimum of $34 per pupil in elementary schools. This meant 
that in a district where a one per cent levy (plus the $9 flat grant) did not 
bring in enough revenue to pay $34 a year per pupil, the state would pay 
the difference. 

Many changes, mostly increases in both flat grants and equalization 
grants, have been made since. Flat grants were raised to $11 in 1939, to 
$13 in 1943, to $19 in 1945, and to $22 in 1948. In 1947-1948 an emer- 

' Weber, op. cit., p. 51. 

8 Perrin, H. Ambrose. The Administration of the State Distributive Fund in 
Illinois. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago, 1932. pp. 137-8. 



38 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

gency grant of $6 (based on 1945-1946 figures) was added, bringing the 
1948 total to $25. 

In 1943, high schools also received flat-grant aid for the first time, 
at the rate of $2 per pupil in average daily attendance. This was raised 
to $4 in 1945, and $7 in 1947 — with the same emergency grants as the 
elementary schools, which brought the total to $10 each. 

The elementary school equalization level was raised to $41 in 1935, 
to $51 in 1939, to $56 in 1941, to $62 in 1943, to $80 in 1945, and to 
$90 in 1947. 9 

High schools came in for equalization in 1939 at an $80 level which 
was raised to $85 in 1943, to $90 in 1945, and to $100 in 1947. The 66th 
General Assembly (1949) set the equalization level at $120 per pupil in 
both elementary and high-school grades for 1949-1950 and at $160 for 
1950-1951. These levels will be reduced, since the amount appropriated 
was insufficient to meet them, even though claims will be computed on 
these figures, subject to necessary reductions. (In all cases, the equaliza- 
tion figures include the flat grants.) 

In order to qualify for equalization grants, a local school district 
must: 

1. Levy a qualifying tax. (The first qualifying rate, in 1927, was $1 
for each $100 of assessed valuation. In 1939, the qualifying rate for high 
school districts was set at 75 cents, and for unit districts at $1.50. From 
July 1, 1946 to July 1, 1949, the qualifying rates were 25 cents each for 
separate elementary and high school districts, and Zl x /z cents for unit 
districts. The 66th General Assembly (1949) fixed the qualifying rates 
as follows: (a) for the year, 1949-1950, 25-cents for the separate ele- 
mentary and high-school districts and 36-cents for the unit districts; 
(b) for the year, 1950-1951, 40-cents for the former districts and 50-cents 
for the unit districts.) 

2. Have less than the foundation level of income from local qualify- 
ing tax levies and flat grants from the state. 

3. Meet standards stated by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

4. Have an average daily attendance above the legal minimum — with 
a few certified exceptions. (The ADA minimum for July 1, 1949 to June 
30, 1951 is 10.) 

5. Actually spend (not save) the full foundation income. 

Besides the flat-grant and equalization aids and certain minor aids 

8 Grimm, Lester R. "Equalization Progress for Our Schools Must Continue." 
Springfield, Illinois: Research Department, Illinois Education Association, March 
1948. p. 1. 



BACKGROUND OF FINANCE PROBLEM 39 

paid from the common school fund, the state of Illinois provides for the 
following special school aids from its general revenues: 

(1) Transportation, three-fourths of the per-pupil costs but not more 
than $20 per pupil transported annually; 

(2) Handicapped children — -physically handicapped, excess cost 
maximum, $300 per pupil; truant, incorrigible, or delinquent, $190 per 
pupil ; mentally deficient, $250 per pupil ; 

(3) School lunches, supplements to federal grants. 

Local School Taxing and Borrowing 

The 88 per cent of all Illinois school revenues raised in local districts 
is virtually all from property taxes. In 1947 10 these were 75.8 per cent 
from real estate, 19.3 per cent from personal properties, and 4.9 per cent 
from railroads. 

The proportion of local government taxes devoted to schools has 
risen steadily during the past 20 years ■ — from 35.5 per cent in 1927, to 
47.2 per cent in 1947. In 1927, the total of taxes for all types of local 
government was $385,916,800, of which $137,403,100 (35.5 per cent) was 
for schools. In 1947, the total of taxes for all types of local government 
was $457,184,797, of which $215,801,236 (47.2 per cent) was for schools. 

The heroic problem of attempting to equalize assessment practices 
throughout the state was manfully attacked by the 64th General Assem- 
bly in 1945. It did enact legislation designed to bring about fair assess- 
ment practices on a full-value basis in each county and in the whole 
state. 

Here again it had to chop at deeprooted precedent and history, for 
as the recent School Finance and Tax commission reported, 11 "The prac- 
tice of valuing property for assessment purposes at a figure below its 
full cash value dates back to the early history of Illinois. During certain 
periods the law permitted the debasement of assessments at specified per- 
centages . . . but since 1927, full value assessments have been a statutory 
requirement. Notwithstanding, . . . assessments continued to be sub- 
stantially debased. . . . The state-wide average in 1945 was 46 per cent, 
whereas the average for downstate was 27 per cent." 

Since the formula for correction of the inequities in each county is 
based on a ratio between assessed and real values, it does not always 
apply to every case with equal justice. On the contrary, property which 

"Property Taxation: Assessed Valuation, Tax Rates, and Tax Extensions, 
1927-38. Illinois Tax Commission; Property Tax Assessments, Levies, Rates, and 
Extensions, 1939, 1940, and 1941. No. 1, 2, 3; Illinois State Tax Commission; 
Illinois Property Tax Statistics, 1942, Illinois Department of Revenue ; Illinois Prop- 
erty Tax Newsletter, No. 5, February, 1949. p. 11. 

11 School Finance and Tax Commission, op. cit., p. 87. 



40 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

originally was assessed too high is increased unduly, and that assessed 
too low is not increased sufficiently, which results in the usual penalties 
paid by men of literal honesty and abeyed for men of easier ethics. 

Like the equalization law, it doesn't accurately equalize everything. 
Yet it has resulted in considerable improvement and may be amended to 
operate even more fairly in the future. 

Obviously, the importance of full and equable assessments bears 
vitally upon the whole problem of school finance and is of concern to 
all interested in the support of our schools. This is another field requir- 
ing further attention and study. 

Except for the qualifying rate for equalization aid, there is no mini- 
mum school tax rate required in Illinois, and many districts have 
operated for a year or more in the past without any tax levies at all. 
This was possible by combining balances already built up with flat grants 
from the state and transporting pupils to an adjoining district. 

But all districts have legal maximum limits on both educational and 
building fund levies. These vary with the type of district and may be 
increased by referenda (See Table II). They were adjusted to compen- 
sate for changes in assessed valuations under the 1945 legislation. 

TABLE II * 

Educational and Building Tax Rate Limits for Illinois School 
Districts Per $100 Assessed Valuation 



Type of District 
and Purpose 


Without 
Referendum 


First 
Referendum 


Second 
Referendum 


Third 
Referendum 


Community Unit 
Educational 
Building 


$1.00 
.25 


$1.40 
.4375 


$1,775 




Other Downstate 
12-Grade Districts 

Educational 

Building 


1.00 
.1875 


1.40 
.375 


1.775 




Chicago 

Educational 
Building 


1.20 
.19 


1.25 






Elementary 

Educational 
Building 


.50 
.1875 


.75 
.25 


.90 


$1,125 


High School 
Educational 
Building 


.50 
.1875 


.75 
.25 


1.00 


.... 


Non-High School 


.50 


.625 







* Illinois Legislative Council Publication 86, School Administration in Illinois, Springfield, 
January 1948, Table 17, p. 38. 



BACKGROUND OF FINANCE PROBLEM 41 

Legal limits also are placed on district borrowing. The bonding limit 
for school buildings is five per cent of the full assessed valuation, which 
is not always enough to meet the need. This is another problem calling 
for clear thinking and long-term planning by the people of the state. 

The limit on anticipation warrants for operating expenses is 75 per 
cent of the levy, which must be paid first as the taxes are collected. 

Due to the lag between time of necessary expenditure and tax collec- 
tion dates, most districts are forced into borrowing to operate. 

Problems from the Past 

The biggest obstacle to genuine equalization in Illinois is the archaic 
and inefficient local district structure discussed in several later chapters 
— a troublesome anachronism constantly in the way of efficient modern 
financing for the schools. 

Without effective redistricting, it will remain impossible to correct 
the great disparities which now exist in local tax resources and assessment 
valuations and in distribution of pupil populations. These disparities 
account for the difference in tax rates that various counties must levy. 

Also, the excessive cost for even a poor educational program in small, 
inefficient districts has made successive General Assemblies reluctant to 
appropriate funds for such ineffectual use. This has tended to reduce 
the whole level of state aid. 

Against all these variations and disparities, the practice of distribut- 
ing most state aid on a straight per-pupil basis, instead of reckoning with 
such a vital factor as the geographic distribution of school children, for 
example, also has tended to perpetuate, rather than to correct, educational 
inequalities. 

An even more obsolete and superfluous "primitive survival" in the 
Illinois school system is the township treasurer's office — 1600 of them 
in the state, each with a treasurer and three trustees. Not once in the 
past 20 years have these offices paid for themselves. 12 In 1947-1948, they 
cost $829,861.80, more than half a million dollars more than their income, 
which was $300,299. 13. 13 

According to the Illinois Legislative Council Report No. 86 on School 
Administration in Illinois, as long ago as 1915 the Illinois Efficiency and 
Economy Committee recommended that the management of local school 
funds be transferred from the township treasurer to the county treasurer, 
under the supervision of the county superintendent of schools, "as a means 
of securing greater efficiency and economy in school finances." The Grif- 

12 Illinois Legislative Council, op', cit., p. 11. 

13 Figures compiled from the 1948 Annual Reports of the County Superintendents 
of Schools on file in the office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 



42 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

fenhagen Report in 1932 recommended that these township offices be 
abolished and township funds and lands be managed by a proposed State 
Board of Education and the State Treasurer. Again in 1944, the school 
committee of the Illinois Agricultural Association reported that the 
township treasurer-trustee plan had become "obsolete, inefficient, and 
needlessly expensive." 

Indeed, none of the problems mentioned in this chapter is new. Most 
of them have been recognized and pointed out repeatedly for years, often 
by the various state commissions 14 and other state agencies which dur- 
ing recent decades have made many studies of school problems, 15 with 
finance as a vital and inevitable part of all of them. 

The problems are recognized. The answers are not always clear. 

The purpose of this book is to report on studies of various specific 
phases of these problems which may be useful in helping to solve them. 

One difficulty is to reconcile the evident need for equalization with 
the equally evident waste of trying to equalize in a one-room school. 

But even if today's problems were solved, there would be new ones 
tomorrow, for there never can be a final answer to all the problems of 
supporting education in an ever-developing, ever-changing, modern so- 
ciety which discovers new needs by the day. 

For more £han a century Illinois has been struggling to bring her 
schools up to the continually rising standard of her needs and ambitions 
— never quite reaching it, but always making some headway. 

She is still trying. 

14 Education Commission of 1907 

Illinois Educational Commissions of 1921, 1923, February, 1935, and July, 1935 
Illinois Commission on Taxation and Expenditures of 1931 
Commission to Survey Higher Education Facilities in Illinois, 1943 
School Finance and Tax Commission, 1947. 

15 The Department of Finance, in 1939 
The Illinois Legislative Council of 1938 

Governor Green's Advisory Committee on Taxation in 1941 

Illinois Education Association 

Illinois Agricultural Association 

Illinois State Chamber of Commerce 

Illinois Association of School Boards 

University of Illinois 



CHAPTER IV 

REORGANIZING SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

Perhaps no factor has a greater bearing on the reorganization of local 
school units than the financing of schools. It may either accelerate or 
retard the organization of adequate local units. On the other hand, the 
type and size of local units affect both the total cost of the educational 
program and the plan of apportionment of state funds to the local units. 

■ — Your School District, 
National Commission on School District Reorganization 

In other words, it's like the egg and the hen: reorganization depends 
on state financing, and state school financing depends on reorganiza- 
tion. It's hard to tell which comes first. 

More than 12,000 local school districts have been organized in Illinois. 
Most of them, although perhaps adequate during a frontier age when 
transportation was meager and educational demands simple, are inade- 
quate in today's complex society, as obsolete as the costumes or the cov- 
ered wagons of the 1870's would be; yet many of them survive and are 
expected to meet the needs of a state that in every other way has changed 
a great deal in the past three-quarters of a century. 

It is true that under the current reorganization drive the number of 
districts has been reduced almost by half — from the maximum of 12,027 
in 1941-1942 to 6092 in 1948-1949 — mostly in the past five years, and 
especially during the past year. But many of these reductions have been 
by simple local consolidations which still do not create districts suffi- 
ciently large to operate most effectively. 

First and most numerous of Illinois school districts are the common 
elementary ones, most of which began long ago as one-room schools with 
a few pupils each. 

As conditions changed and demands for secondary schooling in- 
creased, new types of districts were formed to meet new needs. Second- 
ary districts were superimposed on elementary districts, complicating 
boundaries by overlapping. By 1945, when the major reorganization 
program began, there were nine different types of districts and a com- 
plexity that made redistricting very difficult. 

Of the 11,882 legal school districts in the state in 1945-1946, 9165 
were common school districts operating elementary schools; another 1877 
were elementary districts, legally organized, but closed and transporting 
their pupils to neighboring districts; 631 were high school districts in 
operation, and 25 were high school districts closed and transporting their 
pupils; and there were 86 old-type unit districts and 98 non-high districts. 

[43] 



44 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

To the nine existing types of districts, the 65th General Assembly 
in 1947 added a new one — the 12-grade community unit district, in 
which a given geographical area is under a single board of education. The 
community unit law provides a relatively simple transition from the 
complex, overlapping district structure generally found in any county 
and thereby clarifies the situation instead of further complicating it. 

From information compiled by the State Advisory Commission on 
School Reorganization, we get the following detailed breakdown of the 
types of districts existing in the State as reported by county superintend- 
ents on September 1, 1949: 

Elementary Districts 

Common school districts 3767 

Consolidated 153 

Community Consolidated 266 

Charter 8 

Total 4194 

High School Districts 

Community High School 220 

Township High School 124 

Consolidated High School 8 

Protectorate (no building) 24 

Total 376 

Unit Districts 

Unit Districts (old type) 42 

Charter 11 

Community Unit 222 

Community Consolidated (by resolution) 39 

Total 314 

Non-High Districts 66 

Grand Total 4950 

At the beginning of the 1949-1950 school year, 222 new community 
unit districts already covered more than a third of the area of the state. 
Four counties had made themselves into single, county-wide school dis- 
tricts; 13 others also had less than 10 districts in each; and 15 more, 
making 32, or almost one-third of them all, had less than 25 each. (See 
Table III, next page). 

All this is progress. 

Disparities — and Why 

But 13 counties still have more than 100 districts in each. 

Not only do wide variations still exist in the number of districts 
among counties; but also within counties. For instance, by September, 
1949 Champaign County had four community unit districts covering 



REORGANIZING SCHOOL DISTRICTS 45 



TABLE III 

Distribution of Illinois Counties According to 

Number of Districts * 

(Excluding Cook County) 



Number of Districts 


Number of 


(Step-Interval ) 


Counties 


1- 9 


17 


10- 19 


6 


20- 29 


10 


30- 39 


9 


40- 49 


4 


50- 59 


8 


60- 69 


5 


70- 79 


5 


80- 89 


10 


90- 99 


7 


100-109 


8 


110-119 


1 


120-129 


2 


130-139 


4 


140-149 


3 


150-159 




160-169 


1 


170-179 




180-189 


1 



* Data from State Advisory Commission, "School District Information — State of Illinois," 
Sept. 1, 1949. 

about two-fifths of its area — but in the other three-fifths there were 
still 65 unorganized districts. 

A survey of assessed valuations and enrollments in the new commun- 
ity unit districts made by the State Advisory Commission shows that 
five per cent of them have less than 100 high school pupils in each ; 42 
per cent have only 150 or less; and 80 percent have less than 300. Yet 
the generally accepted standard size at which a high school begins to 
operate at maximum efficiency and economy is considerably larger even 
than 300. 

Some of the difficulties in putting it into effect have been: 

1. Inadequate preliminary study, planning, and interpretation — 
which add up to a lack of understanding, sometimes even among local 
school authorities, as well as among voters. 

2. Complex legal procedures still necessary in adjusting from one 
type of district to another, especially where there is overlapping of ele- 
mentary and secondary district boundary lines. 



46 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

3. Within the law itself — 

a. Need of authority in the State Advisory Commission to reject 
inadequate local plans. 

b. Need of controls to eliminate "land-grabbing" by petitioners. 

c. Need of definite clarifying controls on ways and means of treat- 
ing assets and liabilities of former districts. 

d. The requirement that in voting on a petition separate majorities 
in the urban and rural areas are necessary, instead of one simple majority 
of all the voters. 

4. The state school finance pattern, which sometimes still tends to 
"freeze" small, inefficient districts, because to reorganize into larger dis- 
tricts in some cases results in a decrease of state aid. Contrary to intent, 
this actually may penalize certain districts for merging with others. 

Redistricting Procedures 

It is fundamental to a genuine and effective redistricting such as 
planned in Illinois that (1) new and larger administrative districts be 
established, each with enough pupil population and local financial re- 
sources to justify its formation and each with one school board and one 
superintendent; and (2) that within each of these administrative areas, 
new and larger attendance districts be established, each with enough 
pupil population to justify several teachers and adequate modern build- 
ing, equipment, and program. 

It has long been a well-established fact, as observed by the National 
Commission on School District Reorganization, 1 that size of school and 
cost of education are directly related. In general, the smaller the school, 
the higher the cost per pupil, and the smaller the administrative unit, the 
smaller the schools maintained. Thus, the organization of administrative 
units is closely related to the per pupil cost of education. 

The same Commission cites the case of Iowa, where the "average 
salary for urban teachers exceeds the average salary for rural teachers 
by 86.5 per cent. . . . The cost of urban schools exceeds the cost of rural 
schools by only about 10 per cent per pupil, but the difference in ed- 
ucational opportunities ... is probably almost two to one." 

It also cites studies in Idaho, which indicated that schools with less 
than 50 pupils cost on an average about 53 per cent more per pupil than 
those with 300 or more, and in Washington, where high schools with less 
than 50 pupils were reported to cost 67 per cent more per pupil than even 
those of 150 up, with a constant decrease in per pupil cost up to 1500. 

1 The National Commission on School District Reorganization, Dawson, Howard 
A., and Reeves, Floyd W., co-chairmen. Your School District. Washington, D. C. : 
Department of Rural Education, NEA, 1S48. p. 89. 



REORGANIZING SCHOOL DISTRICTS 47 

Schultz, 2 writing of the proposed intermediate districts in the State of 
New York, states: 

Analyses made in connection with the Intermediate District Study have indi- 
cated a minimum of 4000 to 5000 pupils as essential for the implementation of a 
broad program of educational services on an economical basis. 

Although the figure is associated with the intermediate district structure, 
nevertheless it emphasizes the need for this number for "the implementa- 
tion of a broad program of educational services on an economical basis." 
Lambert, 3 in summarizing experiences in Utah, which has 40 local 
administrative units covering the 29 counties of the state, makes this 
observation: 

If any lesson on this point comes out of Utah's history under consolidation of 
schools, it is that other states which move into the establishment of enlarged local 
school administrative units should, wherever possible, avoid small units to begin 
with, units that have less, let us say roughly, than 2000 to 5000 pupils in grades 
1-12. 

Technical studies of the problems involved in establishing economi- 
cally satisfactory larger unit districts — discovering comparable units for 
cost anlaysis, exploring the possibilities and costs of adequate transpor- 
tation and housing — are reported in the later chapters of this book. For 
the purpose of these studies, we have assumed that a minimum size of 
attendance districts (not administrative districts) should be 300 for ele- 
mentary schools and 700 for high schools for both effective operation 
and economy. 

Redistricting can be encouraged by legislative incentives. Already 
Illinois is trying this in two ways: 

1. By reducing the local qualifying rate in areas having elementary 
and superimposed secondary school districts from a total of 50 cents 
per $100 of assessed valuation to 36 cents, if these districts are 
reorganized and combined into a community unit district. 4 The theory is 
that unorganized districts are less efficient, and hence they should pay a 
higher local qualifying rate for the privilege of remaining separated. 

2. By establishing a minimum average daily attendance requirement 
in elementary and secondary schools below which state aid claims are 
declared invalid (except by special intervention by the County Superin- 

2 Butterworth, J. E., and Morrison, J. C. The Intermediate District in New York 
State. Special Studies. Schultz, Clarence, "Boundaries of Proposed New-Type Inter- 
mediate Districts," University of the State of New York, November 15, 1948. Albany, 
New York. 

3 Lambert, A. C. "Some Experiences Gained Under School Consolidation in 
Utah," American School Board Journal, 117:25-8, August, 1948. 

4 In 1950-51, the rates will be 80 cents and 50 cents, respectively, per $100 of 
assessed valuation. 



48 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

tendent and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction). In order 
to make a valid claim for state aid, an elementary school must have at 
least 10 pupils in ADA after June 30, 1949; 12 after June 30, 1951; and 
15 after June 30, 1953. After June 30, 1951, high schools must have at 
least nine pupils in ADA per grade to receive any state aid. 

Illinois school reorganization legislation is entirely permissive, leav- 
ing initiative exclusively within each county. 

Today's Picture 

All in all, the situation adds up about like this: 

An efficient state financial plan is impossible under the present archaic 
district structure, but it is almost impossible to change that structure 
without a great deal more state money with which to offer the smaller 
and poorer districts inducements clearly to their advantage under redis- 
ricting. 

Good large districts are expensive, just as all good education is ex- 
pensive. The point of redistricting is not simply to get fewer and larger 
schools, but to get larger and better schools. For example, little would 
be served by consolidating two poor districts if the only result were to 
have one poor two-room school instead of two poor one-room schools. 
When the state can route enough money into such districts to help pro- 
vide really modern schools, then redistricting will have far greater local 
appeal. 

The General Assembly has passed laws designed to permit and en- 
courage district reorganization, and under these laws many new districts 
have been formed. People in these districts now assume that their schools 
have made a major step toward improvement, and in many cases this is 
true, though the majority of such districts are still inadequate, both 
educationally and financially, to provide a broad educational program 
economically. 

So far only a beginning has been made toward really effectual re- 
districting, which is, ultimately, to get attendance districts of efficient 
size; and many complex problems still remain to be solved, problems dis- 
cussed in later chapters of this book. 

But in the face of everything, it .is vital to keep in mind that first 
major steps toward improving the Illinois school system to meet modern 
conditions and needs already have been taken. Now it is a matter of 
going on in the direction we already have started. 



CHAPTER V 

COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 

It is the purpose of this chapter to examine the school financial situ- 
ation of Illinois counties with the idea in mind that counties represent 
a type of organization approaching the ultimate. By this means it 
should be possible to view the financial situation which the State of 
Illinois might expect to face in equalizing educational opportunity even 
after what may be considered maximum reorganization of school dis- 
tricts had been achieved. 

But first it is necessary to develop cost units which will clearly re- 
flect comparable educational finance requirements. Considerable prog- 
ress has been made in the development of such units in connection with 
studies of the apportionment of state aid to local schools. While that 
is not the central purpose here, the techniques are useful in the present 
analysis. 1 In the literature on school finance these techniques are usually 
called "measurement of educational need." 

Nature of the Measure of Educational Need 

The measure of educational need developed in this chapter is simply 
a determination of the total number of equalized cost units in each 
county in the state. The units may be expressed in terms of either pupils 
or classrooms. In this study they are expressed as the pupil unit. The 
equivalent number of classroom units can be determined by dividing the 
number of pupil units in any situation by the number 22. 

The measure of need takes into account all elements of cost essential 
to the provision of a foundation program in all localities within counties 
under optimum conditions of district organization. These elements, vari- 
able from place to place, are as follows: (1) number of pupils in school 
in grades kindergarten through 12, and (2) sparsity of school population 
requiring transportation of some pupils, or operation of some small 
schools with average sizes of teaching groups less than respective groups 
in normal situations, or both. 

The first element of cost is the basic part of the measure. This ele- 
ment would be the complete measure if all localities were normal situa- 
tions; i.e., if the sparsity of school population were such as to make it 
possible to operate high schools with a minimum of approximately 700 
pupils and elementary schools with a minimum of 300 pupils, all within 

1 The writers emphasize at this point the fact that measures of educational need 
are too frequently overlooked as important means of statistical analysis. The com- 
posite measures used in this study provide about the only means of examining the 
total finance pattern such as appears in Chapter VI, even though such measures 
might not be adopted in the state plan of grants to local units. 

[49] 



50 



FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 



walking distance (a mile and a half) of school. 

The second element of cost consists of two parts: (1) transportation, 
and (2) extra cost of some small schools that can be justified. These two 
types of extra costs are different manifestations of the same fundamental 
cause, namely, sparsity of school population. The total effect of these two 
facets of extra cost, found in some areas and not in others, is known as a 
correction for sparsity of population. Part of a measure of need is a spar- 
sity formula for obtaining an objective estimate of these extra costs in 
areas where the population sparsity warrants them. 

The unit of need selected in this report is the pupil unit. This unit, 
as indicated above, is a factor of the classroom unit, and it may be ex- 
pressed in either form with the same results. 

The Total Number of Educational Need Units 
for Illinois in 1947-1948 

This section presents by counties the total number of educational 
need units computed for purposes of this study. The total need (number 
of pupil units) for each county may be obtained by adding the two parts 
already discussed. The first part, called the basic part of the need, con- 
sists merely of the number of actual pupils in average daily attendance 
in grades kindergarten through 12 in the public schools, as found in official 
reports of the county superintendents of education on file in the office 
of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The second part of the 
measure of need consists of a correction for sparsity of population, ex- 
pressed in pupil units. The sum of these two parts is the total number of 
pupil units which would be paid for in an equalized program of support. 

Table IV presents the summary of this need. It will be noted that 



TABLE IV 

Total Educational Need, 1947-1948 
(Pupil Cost Units) 



County 


(i) 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance 

K-8 


(2) 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance 

9-12 


(3) 

Total 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance 

K-12 


(4) 

Pupil Units 
for Sparsity 
Correction 


(5) 

Total Need 
(Pupil 
Units) 


(6) 

Per Cent 
That Sparsity 
Correction Is 
of Total Need 


Adams 


5,143 


1,889 


7,032 


1,677 


8,709 


19.25 


Alexander 


2,846 


807 


3,653 


691 


4,344 


15.90 


Bond 


1,662 


670 


2,332 


886 


3,218 


27.55 


Boone 


1,895 


580 


2,475 


644 


3,119 


20.65 


Brown 


753 


237 


990 


582 


1,572 


36.99 


Bureau 


4,105 


1,585 


5,690 


2,084 


7,774 


26.81 


Calhoun 


807 


268 


1,075 


575 


1,650 


34.84 


Carroll 


2,233 


812 


3,045 


1,149 


4,194 


27.41 


Cass 


1,870 


1,236 


3,106 


930 


4,036 


23.04 



COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 
TABLE IV (Continued) 



51 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


(6) 




Average 


Average 


Total 










Daily 


Daily 


Average 






Per Cent 


County 


Attendance 


Attendance 


Daily 


Pupil Units 


Total Need 


That Sparsity 




K-8 


9-12 


Attendance 


for Sparsity 


(Pupil 


Correction Is 








K-12 


Correction 


Units) 


of Total Need 


Champaign 


7,097 


2,645 


9,742 


2,381 


12,123 


19.64 


Christian 


4,308 


1,699 


6,007 


1.690 


7.697 


21.96 


Clark 


2,092 


851 


2.943 


1.083 


4,026 


26.90 


Clay 


2,481 


840 


3,321 


1,100 


4,421 


24.89 


Clinton 


1,966 


502 


2,468 


1,131 


3.599 


31.43 


Coles 


4,266 


1,354 


5,620 


1,115 


6.735 


16.55 


Cookt 


62,287 


29,117 


91,404 


3,437 


94,841 


3.62 


Crawford 


3,416 


1,024 


4.440 


1,306 


5.746 


22.72 


Cumberland 


1,365 


398 


1,763 


849 


2,612 


32.52 


De Kalb 


3,802 


1,637 


5,439 


1,411 


6.850 


20.60 


De Witt 


2,120 


766 


2,886 


954 


3,840 


24.84 


Douglas 


2,006 


824 


2,830 


1,067 


3,897 


27.38 


Du Page 


12,963 


5,762 


18,725 


1,133 


19.858 


5.71 


Edgar 


2,706 


970 


3,676 


1,297 


4,973 


26.09 


Edwards 


1,007 


373 


1,380 


589 


1,969 


29.90 


Effingham 


2,345 


916 


3,261 


1,176 


4,437 


26.51 


Fayette 


3,304 


978 


4,282 


1,674 


5,956 


28.10 


Ford 


1,836 


736 


2,572 


1,125 


3,697 


30.44 


Franklin 


6,702 


2,578 


9,280 


1,390 


10,670 


13.02 


Fulton 


5,159 


2,137 


7,296 


2,271 


9.567 


23.74 


Gallatin 


1,448 


388 


1,836 


831 


2,667 


31.16 


Greene 


2,367 


843 


3,210 


1,212 


4,422 


27.41 


Grundy 


1,980 


829 


2.809 


1,001 


3.810 


26.27 


Hamilton 


1,729 


468 


2,197 


915 


3,112 


29.39 


Hancock 


3,033 


1,315 


4,348 


1,935 


6.283 


30.79 


Hardin 


1,328 


284 


1,612 


576 


2.188 


26.30 


Henderson 


1,112 


359 


1,471 


810 


2,281 


35.53 


Henry 


4,720 


1,907 


6,627 


1,895 


8,522 


22.24 


Iroquois 


3,606 


1,424 


5,030 


2,412 


7,442 


32.42 


Jackson 


4,506 


1,600 


6,106 


1,490 


7,596 


19.61 


Jasper 


1,350 


481 


1,831 


1,025 


2,856 


35.89 


Jefferson 


4,627 


1,337 


5,964 


1,434 


7,398 


19.39 


Jersey 


1,800 


519 


2,319 


777 


3,096 


25.10 


Jo Daviess 


2,211 


816 


3,027 


1,346 


4,373 


30.78 


Johnson 


1,377 


379 


1,756 


845 


2,601 


32.50 


Kane 


11,785 


5,046 


16,831 


1,412 


18,243 


7.74 


Kankakee 


4,825 


1,935 


6,760 


1,694 


8,454 


20.04 


Kendall 


1,260 


489 


1,749 


805 


2,554 


31.51 


Knox 


5,623 


2,134 


7,757 


1,683 


9,440 


17.83 


Lake 


13,253 


5,641 


18.894 


1,611 


20,505 


7.85 


La Salle 


8,769 


3,773 


12,542 


2,531 


15,073 


16.79 


Lawrence 


2,759 


1,058 


3,817 


1,058 


4,875 


21.71 


Lee 


3,577 


1,237 


4,814 


1,552 


6,366 


24.37 


Livingston 


3,549 


1,527 


5,076 


2,215 


7,291 


30.38 


Logan 


2,637 


1564 


3.901 


1,329 


5.230 


25.41 


Macon 


9,859 


3,523 


13,382 


1,646 


15,028 


10.95 


Macoupin 


4,602 


2,087 


6,689 


2,072 


8,761 


23.65 


Madison 


18,378 


6,748 


25,126 


2,202 


27,328 


8.06 



t Exclusive of Chicago. 



a OF HJL LIB. 



52 



FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 







TABLE 


IV (Continued) 






County 


(1) 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance 

K-8 


(2) 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance 

9-12 


(3) 

Total 

Average 

Daily 

Attendance 

K-12 


(4) 

Pupil Units 
for Sparsity 
Correction 


(5) 

Total Need 
(Pupil 

Units) 


(6) 

Per Cent 
That Sparsity 
Correction Is 
of Total Need 


Marion 


5,428 


2,030 


7,458 


1,656 


9,114 


18.17 


Marshall 


1,348 


565 


1,913 


948 


2.861 


33.12 


Mason 


2,019 


774 


2,793 


1,132 


3,925 


28.83 


Massac 


1,919 


576 


2,495 


615 


3,110 


19.76 


McDonough 


2,859 


1,061 


3,920 


1,389 


5,309 


26.17 


McHenry 


4,325 


1,787 


6,112 


1,768 


7,880 


22.43 


McLean 


7,342 


2,697 


10,039 


2,797 


12,836 


21.79 


Menard 


1,184 


404 


1,588 


679 


2.267 


29.94 


Mercer 


2,152 


793 


2,945 


1,290 


4,235 


30.46 


Monroe 


1,115 


406 


1,521 


825 


2,346 


35.17 


Montgomery 


3,332 


1,442 


4,774 


1,436 


6,210 


23.13 


Morgan 


3,198 


1,199 


4,397 


1,314 


5,711 


23.02 


Moultrie 


1,705 


532 


2,237 


822 


3,059 


26.87 


Ogle 


3,756 


1,450 


5,206 


1,876 


7,082 


26.49 


Peoria 


15,429 


5,018 


20,447 


1.957 


22.404 


8.74 


Perry 


2,529 


960 


3,489 


1,002 


4,491 


22.32 


Piatt 


1,907 


811 


2,718 


1,086 


3,804 


28.54 


Pike 


2,676 


1,077 


3,753 


1,789 


5,542 


32.28 


Pope 


890 


265 


1,155 


691 


1,846 


37.43 


Pulaski 


2,384 


752 


3,136 


801 


3,937 


20.35 


Putnam 


581 


212 


793 


396 


1,189 


33.29 


Randolph 


2,886 


1,182 


4,068 


1,370 


5,438 


25.19 


Richland 


2,133 


716 


2,849 


563 


3,412 


16.49 


Rock Island 


12,139 


4,366 


16,505 


3,522 


20,027 


17.58 


St. Clair 


17,220 


5,468 


22,688 


5,089 


27,777 


18.32 


Saline 


4,771 


1,668 


6,439 


1,220 


7,659 


15.93 


Sangamon 


11,091 


4,156 


15,247 


2,354* 


17,601* 


13.81 


Schuyler 


1,158 


329 


1,487 


856 


2,343 


36.52 


Scott 


862 


344 


1.206 


600 


1,806 


33.22 


Shelby 


2,864 


1,247 


4,111 


1,767 


5,878 


30.06 


Stark 


1,055 


447 


1,502 


717 


2,219 


32.31 


Stephenson 


4.035 


1,425 


5,460 


1,333 


6,793 


19.62 


Tazewell 


8,784 


2,823 


11,607 


2,071 


13,678 


15.14 


Union 


2,664 


754 


3,418 


1,042 


4,460 


23.37 


Vermilion 


9,517 


3,380 


12,897 


2,275 


15,172 


15.00 


Wabash 


1,710 


574 


2,284 


530 


2,814 


18.83 


Warren 


2,384 


877 


3,261 


1,078 


4.339 


24.84 


Washington 


1,174 


566 


1,740 


1,036 


2,776 


37.32 


Wayne 


2,947 


813 


3,760 


1,542 


5,302 


29.09 


White 


3,034 


1,063 


4,097 


1,221 


5,318 


22.96 


Whiteside 


5,525 


1,813 


7,338 


1,588 


8,926 


17.79 


Will 


10,041 


3,799 


13,840 


2,483 


16,323 


15.21 


Williamson 


6,628 


2,270 


8,898 


1,371 


10,269 


13.35 


Winnebago 


13,513 


4,314 


17,827 


2,013 


19,840 


10.15 


Woodford 


2,128 


987 


3,115 


1,374 


4,489 


30.61 


Chicago 


231,098 


93,749 


324,847 


3,340 


328,187 


1.02 


Total 


712,051 


277,543 


989,594 


146,339 


1,135,959 




* 1946-1947 


Data. 













COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 53 

the first three columns of this table show the basic part of the total 
need of each county. Column 4 shows the number of pupil units that 
should be added to the county as a whole to take care of the extra cost 
attributable to sparsity of population. The total number of cost units 
(pupil units) for each county is shown in Column 5. Column 6 shows 
the percentage that the sparsity correction is of the total educational 
need. For example, it is noted that Adams County has a total of 7032 
pupils in average daily attendance in all grades including kindergarten 
through 12. An addition of 1677 units to take care of non-classroom or 
surplus costs gives a grand total of 8709 units. The sparsity correction 
consists of 19.25 per cent of the total need. It will be noted that in the 
next county, Alexander, the sparsity correction is 15.9 per cent of its 
total need. 

An examination of Column 6 reveals a considerable variation among 
counties with respect to the percentage that sparsity correction is of the 
total educational need. This fact demonstrates the inequities involved in 
using straight average daily attendance alone for computing educational 
need. For example, it is noted that the sparsity correction varies from 
37.43 per cent of the total educational need in Pope County to 3.62 per 
cent for Cook County, excluding Chicago. The two parts of the educa- 
tional need are shown in graphic form in Chart 10. In this chart, counties 
are listed in the order of number of pupil units as they are shown in 
Column 5 of Table IV. 

The following section of this chapter discusses how the sparsity cor- 
rection was computed. 2 

How the Sparsity Correction Was Computed 

The sparsity correction shown in this study was computed from a 
formula developed especially for the State of Illinois by methods pre- 
viously developed in several states. 3 The formula is a simple regression 
equation based upon the fact that the more widely children are scattered, 
the more expensive is the transportation required to bring them into 

2 Appendix I describes how this method was developed. 

3 McLure, W. P. The Effect of Population Sparsity on School Cost. New York: 
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947. Let Us Pay 
jor the Kind oj Education We Need, Number I, Volume I. Financing Public Edu- 
cation in Mississippi, Number I, Volume II. University, Mississippi: Bureau of 
Educational Research, University of Mississippi, 1948. 

Morrison, J. C, and Butterworth, J. E., Directors. The Intermediate District in 
New York State — Special Studies. Albany: The University of the State of New 
York. The State Education Department. 1948. 

Strayer, G. D., Director. A Report of a Survey of Public Education in the 
State of West Virginia. Charleston: Legislature Interior Committee State of West 
Virginia. 1945. 



CHART 10. Pupil Cost Units in Illinois Counties 



COUNTY 



NUMBER OF PUPILS lin thousands) 



T 



T 



12 



21 



COOK 

ST. CLAIR 

MADISON 

PEORIA 

LAKE 

ROCK ISLAND 

DU PAGE 

WINNEBAGO 

KANE 

SANGAMON 

WILL 

VERMILION 

LA SALLE 

MACON 

TAZEWELL 

MC LEAN 

CHAMPAIGN 

FRANKLIN 

WILLIAMSON 

FULTON 

KNOX 

MARION 

WHITESIDE 

MACOUPIN 

ADAMS 

HENRY 

KANKAKEE 

MC HENRY 

BUREAU 

CHRISTIAN 

SALINE 

JACKSON 

IROQUOIS 

JEFFERSON 

LIVINGSTON 

OGLE 

DE KALB 

STEPHENSON 

COLES 

LEE 

HANCOCK 

MONTGOMERY 

FAYETTE 

SHELBY 

CRAWFORD 

MORGAN 

PIKE 

RANDOLPH 

WHITE 

MC DONOUGH 

WAYNE 

LOGAN 

EDGAR 

LAWRENCE 

PERRY 

WOODFORD 

UNION 

EFFINGHAM 

GREENE 

CLAY 

JO DAVIESS 

ALEXANDER 

WARREN 

MERCER 

CARROLL 

CASS 

CLARK 

PULASKI 

MASON 

DOUGLAS 

DE WITT 

GRUNDY 

PIATT 

FORD 

CLINTON 

RICHLAND 

BOND 

BOONE 

HAMILTON 

MASSAC 

JERSEY 

MOULTRIE 

MARSHALL 

JASPER 

WABASH 

WASHINGTON 

GALLATIN 

CUMBERLAND 

JOHNSON 

KENDALL 

MONROE 

SCHUYLER „,,.. 

HENDERSON K 

MENARD Wit 

STARK »■'■'■ 

HARDIN „. 

EDWARDS M 

POPE If 

SCOTT |L™, 

CALHOUN ||$K 

BROWN iffi* 

PUTNAM WW 





IB 
Is 



Actual Number of Pupils in Average 
Daily Attendance 



Equivalent Number of Pupils for Non- 
Classroom Costs Arising from Sparsity of 
Rural School Population 



COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 55 

teaching groups of economical size. If the distances involved in trans- 
porting some children to such centers are impractical, a few schools 
smaller than normal must be operated. In the latter case, enough units of 
need over and above the number required for transportation would be 
left to take care of the extra cost of the small schools. In other words, 
both manifestations of extra costs due to population sparsity are com- 
bined into one formula. Since these extra costs occur mainly in the rural 
areas, the computations are based upon the number of children classified 
as rural children — - that is, children residing in the open country and in 
the villages with less than 2500 population. 

An illustration of how the formula works in a given county follows: 
First, compute the number of rural children, that is children living out- 
side of cities of more than 2500 population. Second, divide the number 
of rural pupils by the number of square miles of land area in the county. 
The result is the average density of rural school population in the county. 
Then refer the average number of pupils per square mile obtained in this 
manner to a table of sparsity (or density) factors. Third, multiply the 
sparsity faetor obtained in step two by the number of rural pupils, and 
the result will be the total sparsity correction in pupil units to be cred- 
ited to various localities within the county. 

The sparsity factors were computed from the following formula: The 
sparsity factor for any county with an average of six or fewer rural 
pupils per square mile would be .7700 less the product of .0567 times the 
number of rural pupils per square mile. For counties with more than 
six rural pupils per square mile, but not more that 11, the sparsity 
factor would be .586 less .026 times the number of rural pupils per square 
mile. For counties with more than 11 rural pupils per square mile, but 
not more than 22, the sparsity factor of a given county would be .410 
less .010 times the number of rural pupils per square mile. For counties 
with more than 22 rural pupils per square mile, a sparsity factor of a 
given county would be .300 less .005 times the number of rural pupils 
per square mile. For purposes of this computation, the area of each 
county was defined as the land area in square miles reported in the last 
federal census less the area in cities with more than 2500 population. 

The computations for the sparsity correction of each county for the 
year 1947-1948 are shown in Table V. Reading across the top of the 
table for Adams County, it is noted that there are 860 square miles of 
rural territory and 2895 rural pupils in average daily attendance, which 
give an average of 3.3667 rural pupils per square mile. Now, substituting 
this number in the proper category of the preceding formula for obtaining 
the proper sparsity factor, the result obtained is .5792. This factor mul- 



TABLE V 

Correction for Sparsity 
of Rural School Population, 1947-1948 



County 


(i) 

Area 
(Sq. Miles) 


(2) 
Number 
of Rural 
Pupils * 


(3) 

Number of 

Rural Pupils 

Per Sq. Mile 


(4) 

Sparsity 
Factor 


(5) 

Sparsity 

Correction 

(Pupil Units) 


Adams 


860 


2,895 


3.3667 


.5792 


1,677 


Alexander 


220 


1,931 


8.7774 


.3578 


691 


Bond 


382 


1,724 


4.5135 


.5141 


886 


Boone 


280 


1,243 


4.4383 


.5183 


644 


Brown 


307 


991 


3.2273 


.5870 


582 


Bureau 


863 


4,244 


4.9181 


.4911 


2,084 


Calhoun 


259 


1,075 


4.1502 


.5347 


575 


Carroll 


465 


2,420 


5.2051 


.4749 


1,149 


Cass 


369 


2,031 


5.5053 


.4578 


930 


Champaign 


993 


4,803 


4.8372 


.4957 


2,381 


Christian 


706 


3,404 


4.8210 


.4966 


1,690 


Clark 


502 


1,984 


3.9525 


.5459 


1,083 


Clay 


462 


2,202 


4.7670 


.4997 


1,100 


Clinton 


497 


2,161 


4.3481 


.5235 


1,131 


Coles 


500 


2,092 


4.1843 


.5328 


1,115 


Cookt 


790 


19,386 


24.5394 


.1773 


3,437 


Crawford 


441 


3,372 


7.6456 


.3872 


1,306 


Cumberland 


347 


1,763 


5.0803 


.4819 


849 


De Kalb 


625 


2,676 


4.2814 


.5272 


1,411 


De Witt 


397 


1,928 


4.8571 


.4946 


954 


Douglas 


419 


2,386 


5.6955 


.4471 


1,067 


Du Page 


297 


4,241 


14.2787 


.2672 


1,133 


Edgar 


625 


2,317 


3.7075 


.5598 


1,297 


Edwards 


225 


1,381 


6.1362 


.4265 


589 


Effingham 


481 


2,436 


5.0648 


.4828 


1,176 


Fayette 


716 


3,280 


4.5812 


.5102 


1,674 


Ford 


485 


2,190 


4.5159 


.5139 


1,125 


Franklin 


425 


4,316 


10.1543 


.3220 


1,390 


Fulton 


870 


5,317 


6.1116 


.4271 


2,271 


Gallatin 


328 


1,836 


5.5985 


.4526 


831 


Greene 


539 


2,291 


4.2507 


.5290 


1,212 


Grundy 


430 


1,953 


4.5427 


.5124 


1,001 


Hamilton 


434 


1,650 


3.8019 


.5544 


915 


Hancock 


796 


3,973 


4.9909 


.4870 


1,935 


Hardin 


183 


1,613 


8.8130 


.3569 


576 


Henderson 


381 


1,471 


3.8598 


.5511 


810 


Henry 


823 


3,659 


4.4465 


.5179 


1,895 


Iroquois 


1,120 


4,414 


3.9414 


.5465 


2,412 


Jackson 


597 


3,189 


5.3410 


.4672 


1,490 


Jasper 


494 


1,831 


3.7060 


.5599 


1,025 


Jefferson 


571 


3,108 


5.4433 


.4614 


1,434 


Jersey 


370 


1,398 


3.7785 


.5558 


777 


Jo Daviess 


611 


2,503 


4.0967 


.5377 


1,346 


Johnson 


345 


1,756 


5.0898 


.4814 


845 


Kane 


492 


3,538 


7.1908 


.3990 


1,412 


Kankakee 


674 


3,676 


5.4546 


.4607 


1,694 


Kendall 


320 


1,749 


5.4652 


.4601 


805 


Knox 


718 


3,310 


4.6100 


.5086 


1,683 


Lake 


389 


7,002 


18.0007 


2300 


1,611 


La Salle 


1,135 


4,753 


4.1873 


.5326 


2,531 


Lawrence 


373 


2,627 


7.0446 


.4028 


1,058 



t Exclusive of Chicago. 



TABLE V (Continued) 



County 



(1) 

Area 
(Sq. Miles) 



(2) 
Number 
of Rural 
Pupils * 



(3) 

Number of 

Rural Pupils 

Per Sq. Mile 



(4) 

Sparsity 
Factor 



(5) 

Sparsity 

Correction 

(Pupil Units) 



Lee 


726 


2,824 


3.8899 


.5494 


1,552 


Livingston 


1,039 


4,023 


3.8719 


.5505 


2,215 


Logan 


618 


2,430 


3.9318 


.5471 


1,329 


Macon 


567 


4,169 


7.3523 


.3948 


1,646 


Macoupin 


863 


4,187 


4.8515 


.4949 


2.072 


Madison 


706 


6,083 


8.6165 


.3620 


2,202 


Marion 


575 


4,166 


7.2450 


.3976 


1.656 


Marshall 


395 


1,913 


4.8440 


.4953 


948 


Mason 


539 


2,035 


3.7763 


.5559 


1,132 


Massac 


245 


1,329 


5.4260 


.4623 


615 


McDonough 


579 


2,805 


4.8453 


.4953 


1,389 


McHenry 


605 


4,506 


7.4482 


.3923 


1,768 


McLean 


1,164 


5,654 


4.8574 


.4946 


2,797 


Menard 


311 


1,254 


4.0308 


.5415 


679 


Mercer 


555 


2,514 


4.5300 


.5131 


1,290 


Monroe 


379 


1,521 


4.0133 


.5424 


825 


Montgomery 


702 


2,544 


3.6243 


.5645 


1,436 


Morgan 


561 


2,583 


4.6044 


.5089 


1,314 


Moultrie 


344 


1,651 


4.8002 


.4978 


822 


Ogle 


754 


3,993 


5.2953 


.4698 


1,876 


Peoria 


609 


5,740 


9.4245 


.3410 


1,957 


Perry 


438 


1,925 


4.3947 


.5208 


1.002 


Piatt 


435 


2,325 


5.3437 


.4670 


1.086 


Pike 


828 


3,281 


3.9623 


.5453 


1,789 


Pope 


381 


1,155 


3.0324 


.5981 


691 


Pulaski 


203 


3,136 


15.4463 


.2555 


801 


Putnam 


166 


793 


4.7775 


.4991 


396 


Randolph 


591 


2,663 


4.5053 


.5145 


1,370 


Richland 


360 


894 


2.4836 


.6292 


563 


Rock Island 


403 


5,037 


1.2497 


.6992 


3.522 


St. Clair 


650 


7,196 


1.1070 


.7072 


5,089 


Saline 


381 


3,550 


9.3179 


.3437 


1,220 


Sangamon 


870 


5,637 


6.4793 


.4176 


2,354 


Schuyler 


433 


1,487 


3.4345 


.5753 


856 


Scott 


251 


1,206 


4.8056 


.4975 


600 


Shelby 


771 


3,397 


4.4053 


.5202 


1,767 


Stark 


291 


1,502 


5.1605 


.4774 


717 


Stephenson 


563 


2,647 


4.7016 


.5034 


1,333 


Tazewell 


639 


6,230 


9.7491 


.3325 


2,071 


Union 


412 


2,296 


5.5716 


.4541 


1,042 


Vermilion 


883 


5,282 


5.9816 


.4308 


2,275 


Wabash 


219 


1,081 


4.9346 


.4902 


530 


Warren 


540 


1,883 


3.4876 


.5723 


1,078 


Washington 


565 


1,740 


3.0796 


.5954 


1,036 


Wayne 


714 


2,828 


3.9603 


.5455 


1,542 


White 


500 


2,522 


5.0447 


.4840 


1,221 


Whiteside 


686 


3,082 


4.4930 


.5152 


1,588 


Will 


837 


6,425 


7.6768 


.3864 


2,483 


Williamson 


434 


3,876 


8.9308 


.3538 


1,371 


Winnebago 


507 


7,955 


15.6908 


.2531 


2,013 


Woodford 


537 


3,115 


5.8003 


.4411 


1,374 


Chicago 










3,340 


Total 




319,559 






146,335 



* Number of pupils in average daily attendance in the county exclusive of pupils in cities 
of 2,500 population or more. 



58 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

tiplied by the number of rural pupils gives 1677 pupil units as a total 
sparsity correction for Adams County. 

Meaning of the Sparsity Factor 

The sparsity factor simply means the excess per capita cost of a 
foundation program for rural children over that of urban children. 

In the case of Adams County, just cited, the number .5792 indicates 
that, on the average, the per capita cost for rural children within that 
county is 57.92 per cent greater than is the per capita cost for children 
living under normal circumstances within this county, or in other 
counties. Normal circumstances are taken to be those in localities where 
the population density is great enough so that there are at least 300 
elementary children and 700 high school pupils within walking distance 
of school. The sparsity factor in Table V may be thought of, therefore, 
as a fractional amount of a pupil unit, on the average, to be added to 
each rural pupil in the county. 

We now turn to analysis of data in Illinois counties by means of their 
pupil cost units. 

Present Levels of Ability and Expenditure of Counties 

In Chart 7 of Chapter II, variations in wealth per unit were shown 
for Illinois counties. The data for this chart are shown in tabular form 
in Table VI. In the first two columns of this table are the assessed valua- 
tion and the pupil cost units, respectively, for each county. In Column 3, 
figures on assessed valuation per pupil cost unit show the relative financial 
ability of counties. This varies from $38,038 per pupil unit in Piatt County 
to only $2728 per pupil in Pulaski County. It is evident from these figures 
that reorganization of districts even to the ultimate point of districts 
as large as counties will not eliminate state-wide concern for marked 
difference among units in ability to raise local taxes for education. Re- 
organization of districts helps, but it does not solve problems of financial 
inequalities in school support. 

A comparison of Column 3 in Table VI with Columns 4 and 5 shows 
how different it is to compare counties on the basis of cost units as used 
in this study than on the basis of average daily attendance. It is differ- 
ences as great as those between Columns 3 and 4 which produce great ir- 
regularities among local units in a plan of state aid to local units on an 
equalizing basis using a "qualifying rate" on local assessed valuation. 

The present state aid law in Illinois does not use the refined pupil 
units, instead it computes aid on the basis of average daily attendance. 

If the Illinois finance plan is to be in keeping with the technical de- 
velopments reported in this volume, it must adopt a refined measure of 
need to use in apportioning state funds. This step should be taken before 



COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 



59 



TABLE VI 

Variations in Average Local Ability 

Among Counties to Finance Education 

1947-1948 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 
Amount of 




Total 






Valuation per 


Valuation 




Assessed 


Total Number 


Valuation 


Actual Pupil 


Per Actual 


County 


Valuation 


of Pupil 


Per Pupil 


in 


Pupil for 




1947* 


Cost Units 


Unit 


Attendance 


Sparsity 


Piatt 


$ 144,699,156 


3,804 


$38,038 


153,225 


$15,187 


Lake 


503,442,806 


20,505 


24,552 


26,645 


2,093 


Will 


377,326,088 


16,323 


23,116 


27,263 


4,147 


Champaign 


279,210,830 


12,123 


23,031 


28,659 


5,628 


La Salle 


347,149,761 


15,073 


23,031 


27,679 


4,648 


Livingston 


165,194,057 


7,291 


22,660 


32,545 


9,885 


McLean 


290,073,979 


12,836 


22,598 


28,894 


6,296 


Cook t 


9,490,378,397 


423,028 


22,434 


22,799 


465 


Peoria 


490,222,240 


22,404 


21,881 


23,975 


2,094 


Kane 


396,991,430 


18,243 


21,762 


23,587 


1,825 


Kendall 


55,570,632 


2,554 


21,758 


31,775 


10,017 


Lee 


136,969,280 


6,366 


21,515 


28,449 


6,934 


De Kalb 


146,247,076 


6,850 


21,349 


26,888 


5,539 


Du Page 


423,288,418 


19,858 


21,315 


22,605 


1,290 


Logan 


111,106,306 


5,230 


21,239 


28,479 


7,240 


Grundy 


80,907,488 


3,810 


21,235 


28,805 


7,570 


Iroquois 


154,296,120 


7,442 


20,733 


30,678 


9,945 


Ford 


76,197,634 


3,697 


20,610 


29,626 


9,016 


McHenry 


161,472,128 


7,880 


20,488 


26,415 


5,927 


Edgar 


101,212,453 


4,973 


20,352 


27,533 


7,181 


Warren 


87,979,204 


4,339 


20,276 


26,977 


6,701 


Douglas 


78,748,465 


3,897 


20,207 


27,823 


7,616 


Woodford 


90,340,939 


4,489 


20,124 


29,003 


8,879 


Winnebago 


392,367,054 


19,840 


19,776 


22,010 


2,234 


Kankakee 


167,041,647 


8,454 


19,758 


24,709 


4,951 


Adams 


168,404,955 


8,709 


19,336 


23,946 


4,610 


Marshall 


54,970,563 


2,861 


19,213 


28,729 


9,516 


Moultrie 


58,033,258 


3,059 


18,971 


25,938 


6,967 


Sangamon 


332,370,535 


17,601 


18,883 


21,798 


2,915 


De Witt 


72,291,074 


3,840 


18,825 


25,045 


6,220 


Macon 


274,003,281 


15,028 


18,232 


20,475 


2,243 


Ogle 


128,878,741 


7,082 


18,198 


24,753 


6,555 


Menard 


40,519,518 


2,267 


17,873 


25,512 


7,639 


Bureau 


138,857,860 


7,774 


17,861 


24,405 


6,544 


Stephenson 


120,888,527 


6,793 


17,796 


22,137 


4,341 


McDonough 


93,276,135 


5,309 


17,569 


23,797 


6,228 


Knox 


165,648,698 


9,440 


17,547 


21,355 


3,808 


Henderson 


39,924,651 


2,281 


17,503 


27,149 


9,646 


Henry 


145,687,638 


8,552 


17,095 


21,983 


4,888 


Madison 


- 465,969,584 


27,328 


17,050 


18,545 


1,495 


St. Clair 


465,985,526 


27,777 


16,775 


20,539 


3,764 


Boone 


50,394,640 


3,119 


16,157 


20,362 


4,205 


Stark 


35,752,347 


2,219 


16,111 


23,807 


7,696 


Tazewell 


219,265,184 


13,678 


16,030 


18,892 


2,862 



* As adjusted presumably to 100 per cent of true value. 
t Including Chicago. 



60 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

TABLE VI (Continued) 



County 


(i) 

Total 

Assessed 

Valuation 

1947* 


(2) 

Total Number 

of Pupil 

Cost Units 


(3) 

Valuation 

Per Pupil 

Unit 


(4) 

Valuation per 
Actual Pupil 

in 
Attendance 


(5) 
Amount of 
Valuation 
Per Actual 
Pupil for 
Sparsity 


Coles 


104,243,528 


6,735 


15,477 


18,549 


3,072 


Putnam 


18,144,855 


1,189 


15,260 


22,879 


7,619 


Whiteside 


132,678,950 


8,926 


14,864 


18,082 


3,218 


Monroe 


34,559,754 


2,346 


14,731 


22,721 


7,990 


Morgan 


84,124,950 


5,711 


14,730 


19,133 


4,403 


Christian 


112,786,161 


7,697 


14,653 


18,775 


4,122 


Vermilion 


220,208,746 


15,172 


14,513 


17,074 


2,561 


Carroll 


59,500,314 


4,194 


14,187 


19,544 


5,357 


Washington 


38,604,843 


2,776 


13,906 


22,187 


8,281 


Rock Island 


275,994,005 


20,027 


13,871 


16,721 


2,850 


Hancock 


84,758,710 


6,283 


13,490 


19,494 


6,004 


Mason 


52,860,929 


3,925 


13,467 


18,925 


5,458 


Mercer 


56,404,314 


4,235 


13,318 


19,150 


5,832 


Clinton 


47,856,720 


3,599 


13,297 


19,394 


6,097 


Wabash 


36,601,467 


2,814 


13,006 


16,026 


3,020 


Richland 


43,836,407 


3,412 


12,847 


15,383 


2,536 


White 


66,311,847 


5,318 


12,469 


16,184 


3,715 


Shelby 


70,768,826 


5,878 


12,039 


17,214 


5,175 


Montgomery 


74,173,872 


6.210 


11,944 


15,538 


3,594 


Fulton 


113,570,079 


9,567 


11,871 


15,565 


3,694 


Jo Daviess 


51,311,450 


4,373 


11,733 


16,953 


5,220 


Fayette 


68,344,319 


5,956 


11,474 


15,960 


4,486 


Brown 


17,504,435 


1,572 


11,135 


17,667 


6,532 


Schuyler 


25,981,661 


2,343 


11,093 


17,471 


6,378 


Pike 


60,350,485 


5,542 


10,887 


16,079 


5,192 


Macoupin 


94,240,534 


8,761 


10,756 


14,089 


3,333 


Edwards 


20,742,714 


1,969 


10,534 


15,024 


4,490 


Scott 


18,793,851 


1,806 


10,406 


15,581 


5,175 


Bond 


33,286,989 


3,218 


10,343 


14,277 


3,934 


Cumberland 


26,804,774 


2,612 


10,262 


15,205 


4,943 


Hamilton 


31,408,120 


3,112 


10,092 


14,293 


4,201 


Clark 


39,519,015 


4,026 


9,815 


13,429 


3,614 


Jefferson 


72,512,391 


7,398 


9,801 


12,159 


2,358 


Randolph 


52,874,991 


5,438 


9,723 


12,998 


3,275 


Wayne 


51,262,849 


5,302 


9,668 


13,635 


3,967 


Crawford 


55,378,246 


5,746 


9,637 


12,471 


2,834 


Effingham 


42,618,016 


4,437 


9,605 


13,070 


3,465 


Jersey 


29,656,454 


3,096 


9,578 


12,789 


3,211 


Marion 


87,184,590 


9,114 


9,564 


11,690 


2,126 


Jasper 


26,811,468 


2,856 


9,387 


14,645 


5,258 


Cass 


37,310,882 


4,036 


9,244 


12,013 


2,769 


Greene 


40,143,101 


4,422 


9,078 


12,507 


3,429 


Clay 


37,655,463 


4,421 


8,519 


11,339 


2,820 


Perry 


37,261,852 


4,491 


8,297 


10,680 


2,383 


Jackson 


62,601,418 


7,596 


8,241 


10,251 


2,010 


Franklin 


85,755,106 


10,670 


8,037 


9,241 


1,204 


Lawrence 


38,476,870 


4,875 


7,892 


10,080 


2,188 



As adjusted presumably to 100 per cent of true value. 



COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 61 

TABLE VI (Continued) 



County 


(i) 

Total 
Assessed 
Valuation 

1947* 


(2) 

Total Number 

of Pupil 

Cost Units 


(3) 

Valuation 

Per Pupil 

Unit 


(4) 

Valuation per 
Actual Pupil 

in 
Attendance 


(5) 
Amount of 
Valuation 
Per Actual 
Pupil for 
Sparsity 


Gallatin 


20,085,477 


2,667 


7,531 


10,938 


3.407 


Alexander 


29,363,328 


4,344 


6,759 


8.038 


1.279 


Saline 


51,033,686 


7,659 


6,663 


7,926 


1.263 


Calhoun 


10,770,500 


1,650 


6,527 


10,020 


3.493 


Union 


25,463,426 


4,460 


5,709 


7,451 


1.742 


Williamson 


55,079,547 


10,269 


5,363 


6,190 


827 


Hardin 


11,078,489 


2,188 


5,063 


6,869 


1,806 


Massac 


15,740.964 


3,110 


5,061 


6.309 


1.248 


Johnson 


11,916,783 


2,601 


4.581 


6,786 


2.205 


Pope 


6,568,749 


1.846 


3.558 


5.685 


2.127 


Pulaski 


10,741,282 


3,937 


2,728 


3,426 


69S 


Total 


$20,041,179,855 


1,135,959 









* As adjusted presumably to 100 per cent of true value. 

large measures have been adopted in state aid, so that large sums will 
not become committed to favorable areas not needing them. An intro- 
duction of some form of "sparsity" correction in the state apportionment 
plan will make allowances for areas in which the reorganization problem is 
most serious and will thus provide funds needed in areas where reor- 
ganization is progressing slowly for lack of funds. These areas have 
additional needs for fair allowances for a few schools smaller than normal 
size that can be justified even after complete reorganization and for 
transportation necessary to carry children to and from school. Such 
modifications of the state finance plan go hand in hand with district 
reorganization, for if properly written into law they may enhance rather 
than impede reorganization. 

The foregoing should become increasingly apparent to the reader as he 
follows the analyses in the remainder of this chapter and in subsequent 
chapters. 4 

Local effort is the extent to which local ability has been utilized in 
supporting education. The relative effort of counties may be compared 
by computing the amounts of money per unit of need being raised above 

4 It is to be noted that some of the sparsity factor is in part taken into account 
by the special transportation aid in this state under present law. However, the 
allocation is not based upon a measure of need, but rather (up to a limit of $20 per 
pupil transported) upon what the district spends. Nor is the allocation made on an 
equalization basis. The writers are not objecting to a separate fund for transporta- 
tion if genuine grounds can be found for earmarking that part of state grants, though 
most arguments for it are grounded in a philosophy of distrust of local competence 
contrary to the philosophy of this study. The chief objection is the purely statistical 
one revealed here, that if there is transportation aid it should be granted on the 
same basis as other funds, since getting children to school is an essential part of the 
task of providing them a guaranteed minimum of education. 



CHART 11. Local Effort Beyond 37.5 Cents 
per $100 of Assessed Valuation 



county r 



PIATT 

LAKE 

WILL 

CHAMPAIGN 

LA SALLE 

LIVINGSTON 

MC LEAN 

COOK 

PEORIA 

KANE 

KENDALL 

LEE 

DE K ALB 

DU PAGE 

LOGAN 

GRUNDY 

IROQUOIS 

FORD 

MC HENRY 

EDGAR 

WARREN 

DOUGLAS 

WOODFORD 

WINNEBAGO 

KANKAKEE 

ADAMS 

MARSHALL 

MOULTRIE 

SANGAMON 

DEWITT 

MACON 

OGLE 

MENARD 

BUREAU 

STEPHENSON 

MC DONOUGH 

KNOX 

HENDERSON 

HENRY 

MADISON 

ST. CLAIR 

BOONE 

STARK 

TAZEWELL 

COLES 

PUTNAM 

WHITESIDE 

MONROE 

MORGAN 

CHRISTIAN 

VERMILION 

CARROLL 

WASHINGTON 

ROCK ISLAND 

HANCOCK 

MASON 

MERCER 

CLINTON 

WABASH 

RICHLAND 

WHITE 

SHELBY 

MONTGOMERY 

FULTON 

JO DAVIESS 

FAYETTE 

BROWN 

SCHUYLER 

PIKE 

MACOUPIN 

EDWARDS 

scon 

BOND 

CUMBERLAND 

HAMILTON 

CLARK 

JEFFERSON 

RANDOLPH 

WAYNE 

CRAWFORD 

EFFINGHAM 

JERSEY 

MARION 

JASPER 

CASS 

GREENE 

CLAY 

PERRY 

JACKSON 

FRANKLIN 

LAWRENCE 

GALLATIN 

ALEXANDER 

SALINE 

CALHOUN 

UNION 

WILLIAMSON 

HARDIN 

POPE 
PULASKI 



PERCENTAGE (see Key) 



■>% 


50 


100 


150 


200 250 300% 


■■:.;,. . ,:.t 








1 


■ ■.,.•:,:.,•.■...,:, .. 


#§WMiiiiKWMI 






I"""" ,; U 


;■:''■■■,-■; . 


■;.,■;. j ",' ',;",-„ 




&//)//,'{ 




W//Mr . ' - 




m < 












/!■//}// ''■//,', ///// 


""" L 




n 




¥MMm////////////////////M 


..., 








MM 






. tt:. - ^ 














W///MWM 








■■y 












w 








W///////////MW///////M 






;i 






wMMMMMMM 






WM 






Wlffll 










Wit ' 


\ 


Local Effort is ex- 






L 






Pf'* 










WflMMBWW/M 


that the amount of local taxes 
above 37.5 cents per $100 of 
assessed valuation bears to the 
amount raised at this rate. 

m 






WflC 














W///M 






1 








7 r^ 






! 






.-*?"■ r^nsz 






i 






,; WM 


mi wMA 






iM 






■■" i 








"'■'""":", r 


fMfW/W// /,//■'/:/. 




zz. r i 






WWMM 






~ZZ- ~ ~~*' "~ 






1 


■ 






M. 




1 

mam 










wM//M//ff//M/////, 






fflf 


W////////ffff///////m 








wMM//////mS, 




!' " 










W/////////M 


WMZWmMm 








W//iffl 




■/.■■<>>:--:-^/>::--^.Y--::y Z//.V-/Z 




^^Z^"" nw ' " '■z',:'^. '" ^ ~* ., - "'' T ^ 




i 














SUM 








W§mm 






| 










WWM 




r 










■ . 


'//////////////, '. '",/, 








W////W///W///////W//WM 


Y/ffmffi wMmmfA 




| 










ZZC£iZZZZZZZmM 


§§§§1 










ft 




f^^^i^^ 








W///MM 








r 












"""■"-" ""j 












W///MA 




wmmMMwjm 






fEzz. 






ffim WMMM/j 








W///////////M 




' w/M/M 








i''/mMmmamm > M 


W/////WA 


"""" j 






JZ . 


m 




Wm/M//Mw/w// 








w///////ff/MffM//M 










PHWPIPWH 


Wfflffl/Mmffffl/. 




>': , t 








W///MW//M 






i 








WM, ! 


IIP" ' ' 






i 








% Wm_ W///////////j 








mm 






I 










:■> ■: Wfi > >>, 




' ' ' ... 


'■: .^< .' 












W//////M 








" "'" :"] ' '" 
















'////////////////MM 






















■ 












mm 












IT 






— ' — -- — j 


•■■- ■ .. wMMm/m/M/mmw/m/Mmmmmmj/mm/ww/w/Mwimm 










1 


■ ■■■ ■ " i 










_„„.,„„ 




WiWwiF 4 








:.\ 


■■-■■--■■■■■■< 



COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 



63 



the amount per unit at a uniform rate, say 3.75 mills. 5 The ratio of 

these two amounts indicates relative effort. For example, it is noted in 

Table VII that Piatt County raised $180.03 per pupil unit in 1947-1948 

for current expenses. The amount raised per pupil unit at the rate of 

3.75 mills was $142.65. The effort of this county above this rate was 

$37.38. This amount was 26 per cent of the amount raised at the rate 

of 3.75 mills. Taking this rate for illustrative purposes as a standard by 

which to compare relative efforts of counties, it is noted in Column 4 

that Piatt County's effort above this amount was 26 per cent of the 

standard, while Lake County's effort was 137 per cent. It will be noted 

that the relative efforts vary from 295 per cent in Massac County to 26 

per cent in Piatt County. These variations are presented graphically in 

Chart 11. It will be noted that, with several exceptions, the trend of the 

bars is to increase in length for counties lower on the list. The counties 

are listed in order of wealth per pupil unit from the wealthiest to the 

poorest. Therefore, the tendency is that the poorer the counties the greater 

is the effort to support education. 

5 We use this rate because it was the qualifying rate in the law before July 1, 
1949, for reorganized districts. 



TABLE VII 

Variations in Average Local Effort 

Amoung Counties to Support Education 

1947-1948 



County 


(i) 
Total Local 
Funds per 
Pupil Unit 
for Current 
Expense 


(2) 
Local Funds 

per Pupil 

Unit Raised 

at 3.75 Mill 

Levy 


(3) 
Local Funds 

per Pupil 
Unit Above 

Rate of 
3.75 Mill Levy 


(4) 

Local Effort 

in Percentage 

of Amount 

Raised at 

3.75 Mill Levy 


Piatt 


$180.03 


$142.65 


$ 37.38 


26 


Lake 


218.11 


92.07 


126.04 


137 


Will 


197.02 


86.69 


110.33 


127 


Champaign 


166.22 


86.37 


79.85 


92 


La Salle 


169.28 


86.37 


82.91 


96 


Livingston 


145.09 


84.98 


60.11 


71 


McLean 


169.33 


84.74 


84.59 


100 


Cook 


226.86 


84.13 


142.73 


170 


Peoria 


153.16 


82.05 


71.11 


87 


Kane 


182.79 


81.61 


101.18 


124 


Kendall 


133.56 


81.59 


51.97 


64 


Lee 


149.59 


80.68 


68.91 


86 


De Kalb 


180.33 


80.06 


100.27 


125 


Du Page 


230.08 


79.93 


150.15 


188 


Logan 


159.56 


79.65 


79.91 


100 


Grundy 


136.90 


79.63 


57.27 


72 


Iroquois 


163.95 


77.75 


86.20 


111 



64 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

TABLE VII (Continued) 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 




Total Local 


Local Funds 


Local Funds 


Local Effort 




Funds per 


per Pupil 


per Pupil 


in Percentage 


County 


Pupil Unit 


Unit Raised 


Unit Above 


of Amount 




for Current 


at 3.75 Mill 


Rate of 


Raised at 




Expense 


Levy 


3.75 Mill Levy 


3.75 Mill Levy 


Ford 


167.29 


77.29 


90.00 


116 


McHenry 


164.23 


76.83 


87.40 


114 


Edgar 


140.78 


76.32 


64.46 


84 


Warren 


133.78 


76.04 


57.74 


76 


Douglas 


162.99 


75.78 


87.21 


115 


Woodford 


158.01 


75.47 


82.54 


109 


Winnebago 


158.84 


74.16 


84.68 


114 


Kankakee 


140.46 


74.10 


66.36 


90 


Adams 


154.25 


72.51 


81.74 


113 


Marshall 


132.14 


72.05 


60.09 


83 


Moultrie 


132.79 


71.14 


61.65 


87 


Sangamon 


177.75 


70.81 


106.94 


151 


De Witt 


163.76 


70.60 


93.16 


132 


Macon 


146.80 


68.37 


78.43 


115 


Ogle 


136.15 


68.24 


67.91 


100 


Menard 


160.82 


67.03 


93.79 


140 


Bureau 


141.70 


66.98 


74.72 


112 


Stephenson 


158.45 


66.74 


91.71 


137 


McDonough 


162.56 


65.89 


96.67 


147 


Knox 


147.31 


65.80 


81.51 


124 


Henderson 


147.16 


65.64 


81.52 


124 


Henry 


147.31 


64.11 


83.20 


130 


Madison 


117.70 


63.94 


53.76 


84 


St. Clair 


147.59 


62.91 


84.68 


135 


Boone 


136.58 


60.59 


75.99 


125 


Stark 


149.03 


60.42 


88.61 


147 


Tazewell 


124.45 


60.11 


64.34 


107 


Coles 


102.91 


58.04 


44.87 


77 


Putnam 


145.66 


57.23 


88.43 


155 


Whiteside 


147.64 


55.74 


91.90 


165 


Monroe 


101.84 


55.24 


46.60 


84 


Morgan 


143.42 


55.24 


88.18 


160 


Christian 


126.72 


54.95 


71.77 


131 


Vermilion 


144.67 


54.42 


90.25 


166 


Carroll 


173.62 


53.20 


120.42 


226 


Washington 


81.30 


52.15 


29.15 


56 


Rock Island 


132.56 


51.68 


80.88 


157 


Hancock 


131.30 


50.59 


80.71 


160 


Mason 


118.63 


50.50 


68.13 


135 


Mercer 


125.69 


49.94 


75.75 


152 


Clinton 


77.40 


49.86 


27.54 


55 


Wabash 


107.09 


48.78 


58.31 


120 


Richland 


155.13 


48.18 


106.95 


222 


White 


105.63 


46.76 


58.87 


126 


Shelby 


117.82 


45.15 


72.67 


161 


Montgomery 


118.56 


44.79 


73.77 


165 


Fulton 


129.17 


44.52 


84.65 


190 


Jo Daviess 


100.50 


44.00 


56.50 


128 



COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 



65 



TABLE VII (Continued) 



County 


(i) 
Total Local 
Funds per 
Pupil Unit 
for Current 
Expense 


(2) 
Local Funds 

per Pupil 

Unit Raised 

at 3.75 Mill 

Levy 


(3) 
Local Funds 

per Pupil 

Unit Above 

Rate of 

3.75 Mill Levy 


(4) 

Local Effort 

in Percentage 

of Amount 

Raised at 

3.75 Mill Levy 


Fayette 


91.98 


43.03 


48.95 


114 


Brown 


116.96 


41.76 


75.20 


180 


Schuyler 


99.15 


41.60 


57.55 


138 


Pike 


116.47 


40.83 


75.64 


185 


Macoupin 


131.44 


40.34 


91.10 


226 


Edwards 


113.22 


39.50 


73.72 


187 


Scott 


119\31 


39.02 


80.29 


206 


Bond 


95.86 


38.79 


57.07 


147 


Cumberland 


89.75 


38.48 


51.27 


133 


Hamilton 


64.15 


37.85 


26.30 


69 


Clark 


102.02 


36.81 


65.21 


177 


Jefferson 


75.96 


36.76 


39.20 


107 


Randolph 


96.71 


36.46 


60.25 


165 


Wayne 


77.00 


36.26 


40.74 


112 


Crawford 


79.16 


36.14 


43.02 


119 


Effingham 


116.69 


36.02 


80.67 


224 


Jersey 


68.79 


35.92 


32.87 


92 


Marion 


98.85 


35 .87 


62.98 


176 


Jasper 


56.70 


35.20 


21.50 


61 


Cass 


92.99 


34.67 


58.32 


168 


Greene 


97.83 


34.04 


63.79 


187 


Clay 


68.03 


31.94 


36.09 


113 


Perry 


90.49 


31.11 


59.38 


191 


Jackson 


80.86 


30.91 


49.95 


162 


Franklin 


74.80 


30.14 


44.66 


148 


Lawrence 


82.23 


29.60 


52.63 


178 


Gallatin 


76.30 


28.24 


48.06 


170 


Alexander 


86.92 


25.35 


61.57 


243 


Saline 


50.64 


24.99 


25.65 


103 


Calhoun 


79.95 


24.48 


55.47 


227 


Union 


74.83 


21.41 


53.42 


250 


Williamson 


67.74 


20.11 


47.63 


237 


Hardin 


61.39 


18.99 


42.40 


223 


Massac 


74.98 


18.98 


56.00 


295 


Johnson 


60.97 


17.18 


43.79 


255 


Pope 


47.78 


13.34 


34.44 


258 


Pulaski 


34.76 


10.23 


24.53 


240 



Other interesting facts by which to compare counties are the rela- 
tionships of effort to expenditure level and to the amount of state aid 
that a county received. These facts are shown in Chart 12. In this chart 
counties are listed in descending order of average expenditure per pupil 
unit of need for expenses of current operation. These expenditures in- 
cluded everything except capital outlay, debt service, G.I. training classes, 



CHART 12. Average School Expenditure 
Levels in Illinois Counties, 1947-1948 



EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL UNIT 



COUNTY 



DU PAGE 

COOK 

LAKE 

WILL 

KANE 

DE KALB 

CHAMPAIGN 

CARROLL 

MC LEAN 

FORD 

LA SALLE 

WINNEBAGO 

DOUGLAS 

RICHLAND 

IROQUOIS 

MCDONOUGH 

DE win 

MC HENRY 

WOODFORD 

LOGAN 

PEORIA 

MENARD 

STEPHENSON 

ADAMS 

VERMILION 

MACON 

WHITESIDE 

STARK 

LEE 

HENRY 

PUTNAM 

EDGAR 

KNOX 

ST. CLAIR 

HENDERSON 

BUREAU 

LIVINGSTON 

MORGAN 

KANKAKEE 

GRUNDY 

MACOUPIN 

MOULTRIE 

WARREN 

ROCK ISLAND 

OGLE 

FULTON 

HANCOCK 

KENDALL 

CHRISTIAN 

BOONE 

MARSHALL 

MADISON 

TAZEWELL 

MERCER 

PIKE 



MONTGOMERY 

COLES 

WABASH 

BROWN 

MASON 

EFFINGHAM 

SCOTT 

CLARK 

EDWARDS 

MARION 

FRANKLIN 

SCHUYLER 

GREENE 

CUMBERLAND 

JACKSON 

FAYETTE 

RANDOLPH 

PERRY 

MONROE 

WILLIAMSON 

BOND 

JO DAVIESS 

JEFFERSON 

LAWRENCE 

ALEXANDER 

MASSAC 

WAYNE 

CASS 

GALLATIN 

UNION 

WASHINGTON 

CRAWFORD 

CALHOUN 

SALINE 

HAMILTON 

CLAY 

CLINTON 

HARDIN 

JERSEY 

JASPER 

JOHNSON 

POPE 

PULASKI 




264 



COMPARABLE UNITS FOR COST ANALYSIS 67 

federal and state aid for school lunches, expenses of offices of county su- 
perintendents, and expenses of township treasurers. The left hand section 
of each bar represents the part of the expenditure derived from local taxes. 
The right section of each bar represents the amount of state aid, includ- 
ing federal aid for vocational work. The round barb which appears in 
the left-hand section represents the amounts that actually were raised 
at the rate of 95 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, referred to earlier 
as the average rate for the state. If a county was not levying as much 
as 95 cents, the barb for that county appears beyond the left hand sec- 
tion at a distance representing the amount per pupil by which the county 
falls short of raising at this rate. 

It is interesting to note that of the 62 counties not levying an aver- 
age of 95 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, 37 of them are in the upper 
half of the counties according to expenditure level (total amount per 
pupil unit). A further examination shows that 29 counties could raise 
more funds locally at this rate than the combined actual local funds and 
state aid. Twenty-two counties of this group are in the upper half of all 
counties according to expenditure level. These facts raise unanswered 
questions as to the causes of a definite lessening of average effort at some- 
where around the $175 per pupil unit level. 

The effect of state aid upon effort is apparently negligible. This ap- 
pears to be a reasonable conclusion, since it is noted that the general pat- 
tern of distributing aid gives each county approximately the same amount 
per unit of need. This is further substantiated by a correlation of .1936 
between effort and amount of state aid received. 

It should be emphasized that if the pattern of aid distribution were 
one of greater equalization, the amount of aid per pupil unit would in- 
crease markedly in the poorer counties. Then, if the relative effort were 
the same as in 1947-1948, there would be a higher correlation between 
effort and amount of aid received. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 
OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT 

This chapter examines data for the year 1947-1948 for current operat- 
ing expenses under conditions of improved district organization. The 
first part of the chapter shows what the pattern of support looked like 
in that year with large local units. Statistics for counties are used to 
portray the "large unit" picture. The next part shows what the support 
pattern of that year would have looked like with an equalized founda- 
tion level of $160 per pupil unit in large units. The third part discusses 
the relationship of district reorganization to the problem of support. 
The fourth part shows additional expenditures in that year for capital 
outlay, debt service, offices of county superintendents, and township 
treasurers. 

Pattern of Support in 1947-1948 for Expenses of 
Current Operation 

The pattern of support in the year 1947-1948 is shown in Chart 13. 
The expenditures, expressed as amount per pupil unit, represent most, 
but not all, school expenditures for that year. Expenses for capital outlay 
and debt service for building purposes are not shown for the reason that 
they are not customarily considered with expenses of current operation. 
The expenses of county superintendents and township treasurers, though 
classified as current in nature, were treated separately. It was believed 
that many readers would like to have these items handled separately so 
that these offices, intermediate as they are between the local district and 
state central office, could be viewed in terms of the services they render. 
State and federal aids for school lunches were omitted from this chart 
for the reason that they represent special stimulation grants not ordi- 
narily considered within the framework of a foundation level. However, 
it is emphasized that the separation of these special expenses from the 
picture does not preclude the possibility of later treating them as a part 
of a foundation program. Actually, the amounts are small and would not 
affect the major elements of the picture which will now be pointed out. 

It will be noted that the chart consists of bars for each county and 
that these bars are divided into three sections. The light section on the 
left represents the amount of funds per pupil unit raised from local taxes 
at a uniform rate of 37.5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. 1 The 

1 The qualifying rate for state equalization aid in community unit districts at the 
time when this study was completed. 

[681 



COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 



69 



TABLE VIII 

Pattern of Public School Expenditures * 

in Illinois, 1947-1948 

(Expressed as Amount per Pupil Unit) 



County 


(i) 

Local 
Funds 
at Rate 
of 3.75 
Mill Levy 


(2) 

State and 

Federal 

Aid t 


(3) 
Local 
Funds 
Above 
Rate of 
3.75 Mill 
Levy 


(4) 

State and 

Federal 

Lunch 

Aid 


(5) 

Office of 
County 
Super- 
intendent 


(6) 

Office of : 
Township 
Treasurer 


(7) 

Total 

Expenditure 

per 

Pupil Unit 


Piatt 


$142.65 


$ 23.86 


S 37.38 


$3.82 


$1.45 


$ .69 


$209.85 


Lake 


92.07 


30.38 


126.04 


2.93 


1.32 


.91 


253.65 


Will 


86.69 


27.62 


110.33 


1.08 


1.27 


.94 


227.93 


Champaign 


86.37 


28.26 


79.85 


1.19 


1.23 


1.12 


198.02 


La Salle 


86.37 


22.29 


82.91 


1.57 


1.29 


.82 


195.25 


Livingston 


84.98 


20.93 


60.11 


1.20 


1.96 


2.08 


171.26 


McLean 


84.74 


23.79 


84.59 


1.65 


1.20 


.98 


196.95 


Cook J 


84.59 


29.27 


143.52 


3.84 


.21 


.38 


261.81 


Peoria 


82.05 


29.84 


71.11 


3.77 


1.02 


.50 


188.29 


Kane 


81.61 


22.85 


101.18 


.97 


.92 


.66 


208.19 


Kendall 


81.59 


21.36 


51.97 


.00 


3.98 


1.86 


160.76 


Lee 


80.68 


22.19 


68.91 


.34 


1.76 


1.37 


175.25 


De Kalb 


80.06 


21.72 


100.27 


1.93 


1.57 


.93 


206.48 


Du Page 


79.93 


27.84 


150.15 


2.14 


.63 


.78 


261.47 


Logan 


79.65 


24.06 


79.91 


2.04 


1.91 


.83 


188.40 


Grundy 


79.63 


26.41 


57.27 


.04 


2.68 


1.26 


167.29 


Iroquois 


77.75 


23.85 


86.20 


2.91 


.66 


1.66 


192.37 


Ford 


77.29 


24.42 


90.00 


5.69 


2.40 


1.42 


201.22 


McHenry 


76.83 


22.34 


87.40 


1.78 


1.89 


1.06 


191.30 


Edgar 


76.32 


29.84 


64.46 


2.11 


1.17 


1.24 


175.14 


Warren 


76.04 


26.36 


57.74 


.44 


2.28 


.91 


163.77 


Douglas 


75.78 


26.43 


87.21 


2.17 


2.04 


1.49 


195.12 


Woodford 


75.47 


25.89 


82.54 


1.31 


2.08 


1.24 


188.53 


Winnebago 


74.16 


30.79 


84.68 


2.71 


.99 


.34 


193.67 


Kankakee 


74.10 


24.33 


66.36 


1.38 


2.08 


1.61 


169.86 


Adams 


72.51 


23.51 


81.74 


1.61 


1.45 


.52 


181.34 


Marshall 


72.05 


21.14 


60.09 


.08 


3.09 


1.20 


157.65 


Moultrie 


71.14 


28.86 


61.65 


1.68 


2.63 


.80 


166.76 


Sangamon 


70.81 


24.87 


106.94 


3.68 


1.15 


.60 


208.05 


De Witt 


70.60 


23.27 


93.16 


1.38 


2.79 


1.31 


192.51 


Macon 


68.37 


26.84 


78.43 


2.81 


1.26 


.79 


178.50 


Ogle 


68.24 


21.87 


67.91 


.68 


1.58 


1.04 


161.32 


Menard 


67.03 


21.10 


93.79 


1.65 


4.23 


1.63 


189.43 


Bureau 


66.98 


26.36 


74.72 


.85 


1.86 


1.29 


172.06 


Stephenson 


66.74 


21.28 


91.71 


2.08 


1.46 


.76 


184.03 


McDonough 


65.89 


24.66 


96.67 


.00 


2.07 


.90 


190.19 


Knox 


65.80 


22.27 


81.51 


.60 


1.03 


.62 


171.83 


Henderson 


65.64 


22.04 


81.52 


.98 


2.31 


2.58 


175.07 


Henry 


64.11 


24.00 


83.20 


.19 


1.98 


.84 


174.32 


Madison 


63.94 


34.56 


53.76 


3.10 


.64 


1.22 


157.22 



* Expenses of current operation. These figures do not include expenditures for capital outlay 
and debt service. 

t Excluding aid for school lunches and G.T. training classes, 
t Exclusive of Chicago. 



70 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

TABLE VIII (Continued) 



County 


(l) 

Local 

Funds 

at Rate 

of 3.75 

Mill Levy 


(2) 

State and 

Federal 

Aid t 


(3) 
Local 
Funds 
Above 
Rate of 
3.75 Mill 
Levy 


(4) 

State and 

Federal 

Lunch 

Aid 


(5) 

Office of 
County 
Super- 
intendent 


(6) 

Office of 
Township 
Treasurer 


(7) 

Total 
Expenditure 

per 
Pupil Unit 


St. Clair 


62.91 


21.86 


84.68 


1.76 


.79 


1.17 


173.17 


Boone 


60.59 


17.96 


75.99 


.95 


2.60 


.96 


159.05 


Stark 


60.42 


22.82 


86.61 


.17 


3.10 


1.08 


174.20 


Tazewell 


60.11 


26.74 


64.34 


1.49 


.95 


1.01 


154.64 


Coles 


58.04 


3923 


44.87 


.96 


1.54 


.75 


145.39 


Putnam 


5723 


25.50 


88.43 


4.04 


6.22 


1.83 


183.25 


Whiteside 


55.74 


25.43 


91.90 


.27 


1.54 


.86 


175.74 


Monroe 


55.24 


17.72 


46.60 


.63 


3.50 


.90 


124.59 


Morgan 


5524 


22.17 


88.18 


4.32 


2.10 


.90 


172.91 


Christian 


54.95 


27.84 


71.77 


.42 


1.66 


.76 


157.40 


Vermilion 


54.42 


30.32 


90.25 


2.15 


1.03 


.92 


179.09 


Carroll 


53.20 


19.80 


120.42 


.48 


1.84 


1.34 


197.08 


Washington 


52.15 


28.87 


29.15 


.35 


2.87 


.89 


114.28 


Rock Island 


51.68 


26.50 


80.88 


4.08 


.85 


.40 


164.39 


Hancock 


50.59 


23.65 


80.71 


1.29 


1.71 


1.03 


157.27 


Mason 


50.50 


21.80 


68.13 


2.21 


2.47 


1.75 


146.86 


Mercer 


49.94 


24.82 


75.75 


.52 


2.29 


.90 


154.22 


Clinton 


49.86 


22.29 


27.54 


2.14 


1.67 


.79 


104.29 


Wabash 


48.78 


33.91 


58.31 


2.38 


2.91 


.57 


146.86 


Richland 


48.18 


33.08 


106.95 


1.70 


2.40 


.04 


189.95 


White 


46.76 


42.93 


58.87 


.64 


1.69 


1.01 


151.90 


Shelby 


45.15 


29.12 


72.67 


.36 


1.66 


.98 


149.94 


Montgomery 


44.79 


26.85 


73.77 


1.98 


1.88 


1.14 


150.41 


Fulton 


44.52 


27.98 


84.65 


1.37 


1.00 


.65 


160.17 


Jo Daviess 


44.00 


17.90 


56.50 


.28 


2.23 


.84 


121.75 


Fayette 


43.03 


32.58 


48.95 


1.87 


1.68 


.87 


128.98 


Brown 


41.76 


23.72 


75.20 


.73 


4.78 


.25 


146.44 


Schuyler 


41.60 


27.65 


57.55 


1.27 


3.40 


.98 


132.45 


Pike 


40.83 


32.40 


75.64 


.85 


2.01 


1.35 


153.08 


Macoupin 


40.34 


31.51 


91.10 


1.45 


1.34 


.82 


166.56 


Edwards 


39.50 


18.87 


73.72 


1.54 


3.76 


1.27 


138.66 


Scott 


39.02 


18.82 


80.29 


.29 


4.10 


1.98 


144.50 


Bond 


38.79 


22.99 


59.07 


2.01 


2.08 


.61 


125.55 


Cumberland 


38.48 


36.06 


51.27 


1.47 


3.14 


.84 


131.26 


Hamilton 


37.85 


39.43 


26.30 


.67 


2.81 


1.79 


108.85 


Clark 


36.81 


33.61 


65.21 


.41 


2.17 


.94 


139.15 


Jefferson 


36.76 


41.36 


39.20 


1.71 


1.42 


.63 


121.08 


Randolph 


36.46 


26.76 


60.25 


3.19 


1.99 


.91 


129.56 


Wayne 


36.26 


36.83 


40.74 


.19 


1.93 


1.04 


116.99 


Crawford 


36.14 


30.80 


43.02 


4.50 


1.57 


.77 


116.80 


Effingham 


36.02 


22.84 


80.67 


4.08 


2.32 


.63 


146.56 


Jersey 


35.92 


26.80 


32.87 


.06 


2.62 


.85 


99.12 


Marion 


35.87 


32.89 


62.98 


.87 


1.08 


.69 


134.38 


Jasper 


35.20 


37.79 


21.50 


3.74 


2.78 


1.17 


102.18 


Cass 


34.67 


20.51 


58.32 


.29 


1.97 


.73 


116.49 



* Expenses of current operation. These figures do not include expenditures for capital outlay 
and debt service. 

t Excluding aid for school lunches and G.I. training classes. 



COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 



71 







TABLE 


VIII (Cor 


itinued ) 








County 


(i) 

Local 
Funds 
at Rate 
of 3.75 

Mill Levy 


(2) 

State and 

Federal 

Aid t 


(3) 
Local 

lunds 

Above 

Rate of 

3.75 Mill 

Levy 


(4) 

Sate and 

Federal 

Lunch 

Aid 


(5) 

Office of 
County 
Super- 
intendent 


(6) 

Office of 
Township 
Treasurer 


(7) 

Total 
Expenditure 

per 
Pupil Unit 


Greene 


34.04 


28.74 


63.79 


.07 


2.04 


.94 


129.62 


Clay 


31.94 


35.35 


36.09 


.00 


2.05 


.88 


106.31 


Perry- 


31.11 


29.96 


59.38 


.77 


1.98 


.93 


124.13 


Jackson 


30.91 


44.62 


49.95 


3.04 


1.55 


1.01 


131.08 


Franklin 


30.14 


54.18 


44.66 


3.82 


1.98 


.69 


135.47 


Lawrence 


29.60 


34.30 


52.63 


1.45 


1.85 


.65 


120.48 


Gallatin 


28.24 


34.63 


48.06 


1.54 


3.07 


3.65 


119.19 


Alexander 


25.35 


28.96 


61.57 


2.78 


2.01 


1.56 


122.23 


Saline 


24.99 


54.26 


25.65 


2.40 


1.17 


1.03 


109.50 


Calhoun 


24.48 


24.97 


55.47 


3.19 


4.42 


2.20 


114.73 


Union 


21.41 


35.47 


53.42 


6.49 


2A 


.88 


117.91 


Williamson 


20.11 


51.21 


47.63 


5.40 


1.00 


.74 


126.09 


Hardin 


18.99 


35.51 


42.40 


2.34 


3.38 


.55 


103.17 


Massac 


18.98 


40.89 


56.00 


.35 


2.64 


.87 


119.73 


Johnson 


17.18 


32.25 


43.79 


1.82 


3.15 


1.17 


99.36 


Pope 


13.34 


36.63 


34.44 


.12 


3.94 


1.44 


89.91 


Pulaski 


13.34 


46.87 


21.42 


2.75 


1.98 


.72 


87.08 



* Expenses of current operation. These figures do not include expenditures for capital outlay 
and debt service. 

t Excluding aid for school lunches and G.I. training classes. 



dark center section shows the total amount of state aid per pupil unit 
received that year, exclusive of $877,987.91 for school lunches. The sec- 
tion on the extreme right shows the amount of local funds per pupil unit 
above the amounts already mentioned at the rate of 37.5 cents. The 
supporting data for these sections of the chart, and the separate items 
already mentioned, are shown in Table VIII. 

The most interesting thing to observe about Chart 13 is the rela- 
tionship of state aid to local taxpaying ability. It is noted that, with 
few exceptions, all counties received about the same amount of aid per 
unit of educational need. This means that the total effect of the state 
aid distribution plan in terms of potential reorganization within counties 
was essentially a flat grant proposition. In general, the poor counties re- 
ceived little more aid than the abler ones. If a greater degree of equaliza- 
tion had obtained, the width of the section representing state aid would 
have increased downward on the chart. 

One fact that is not shown on Chart 13 is the number of units of need 
on various expenditure levels. It is noted that the width of all bars is 
the same. If space were adequate, the widths could be varied in propor- 
tion to the percentage of the state total of need units found in each 



CHART 13. Expenditure Pattern for Public 
Education in Illinois, 1947-1948 



COUNTY 



PIATT 

LAKE 

WILL 

CHAMPAIGN 

LA SALLE 

LIVINGSTON 

MC LEAN 

COOK 

PEORIA 

KANE 

KENDALL 

LEE 

DE KALB 

DU PAGE 

LOGAN 

GRUNDY 

IROQUOIS 

FORD 

MC HENRY 

EDGAR 

WARREN 

DOUGLAS 

WOODFORD 

WINNEBAGO 

KANKAKEE 

ADAMS 

MARSHALL 

MOULTRIE 

SANGAMON 

DEWITT 

MACON 

OGLE 

MENARD 

BUREAU 

STEPHENSON 

MC DONOUGH 

KNOX 

HENDERSON 

HENRY 

MADISON 

ST. CLAIR 

BOONE 

STARK 

TAZEWELL 

COLES 

PUTNAM 

WHITESIDE 

MONROE 

MORGAN 

CHRISTIAN 

VERMILION 



ROCK ISLAND 

HANCOCK 

MASON 

MERCER 

CLINTON 

WABASH 

RICHLAND 

WHITE 

SHELBY 

MONTGOMERY 

FULTON 

J0 ?aY v ette 

BROWN 

SCHUYLER 

PIKE 

MACOUPIN 

EDWARDS 

SCOTT 

BOND 

CUMBERLAND 

HAMILTON 

CLARK 

JEFFERSON 

RANDOLPH 

WAYNE 

CRAWFORD 

EFFINGHAM 

JERSEY 

MARION 

JASPER 

CASS 

GREENE 

CLAY 

PERRY 

JACKSON 

FRANKLIN 

LAWRENCE 

GALLATIN 

ALEXANDER 

SALINE 

CALHOUN 

UNION 

WILLIAMSON 

HARDIN 

MASSAC 

JOHNSON 

POPE 

PULASKI 



EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL UNIT 




300 



Local funds per 
pupil unit at 37.5 cents per 
$100 of assessed valuation 



State aid per pu- 



Local funds per 
pupil unit above 37.5 cents 
per $100 of assessed valu- 
ation 



COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 73 

county. If that were done, the bar representing Cook County would be 
37 per cent of the height of the entire chart, since this county has that 
percentage of the total need units in the state. It is for this reason that a 
distinction should be made between average expenditure per pupil unit 
for the state as a whole and the average expenditure level on a per pupil 
unit basis among counties. 

The current expenses represented on this chart amount to $226,- 
372,246. There are 1,135, 959 pupil cost units, or a state average of $200 
per pupil unit. Now, the average county expenditure level is $153 per 
unit. The reason for the difference is apparent when it is noted that the 
four counties spending more than an average of $200 per unit — Cook, 
Du Page, Will, and Lake — have 42 per cent of the state's total need 
units. About half of the counties have an average expenditure level 
ranging from about $80 to $150 per unit, while the other half range from 
$150 to $255. Nearly half the children, however, are in a few counties 
where the average expenditure level is above $200 per pupil. 

Pattern of Support with a Foundation Level 
Equalized at $160 per Pupil Unit 

A further consideration of the expenditure pattern in 1947-1948 is to 
illustrate what it would look like with an equalized foundation level of 
support. This is shown in Chart 14. Reading from left to right, the first 
section represents a local contribution of 50 cents per $100 of assessed 
valuation per pupil unit. This rate was selected for purposes of illustra- 
tion instead of the former 37.5 cent rate for the reason that 50 cents was 
considered and later adopted in new legislation as a qualifying rate for 
well-organized unit districts. The second section is the same as it is in 
Chart 13, namely, the amount of state aid per pupil unit received in 
1947-1948. The third section represents the amount of additional state 
aid per pupil unit required to bring all counties, exclusive of Piatt, 
up to the level of $160 per unit. It will be noted that this section, 
together with the one representing aid received in that year, forms an area 
that increases in width from the top of the chart to the bottom. That is 
to say, the essential characteristic of an equalized foundation program is 
that the state's share, when added to the share of the county at a uniform 
qualifying effort, will produce an equal amount per unit of need in all 
counties. 

The level of $160 per pupil unit was selected as an arbitrary figure 
for purposes of illustration. This amount on a straight per pupil basis 
has received consideration in current proposals for legislation. The ques- 
tion of what constitutes an adequate level is one that merits a major study 
involving educational returns that generally may be expected at various 



CHART 14. Expenditure Pattern Assuming 

$160 Foundation Level per Pupil Unit, 

1947-1948 



COUNTY 



EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL UNIT 



$0 



25 50 75 



100 125 150 175 



PIATT 

LAKE 

WILL 

CHAMPAIGN 

LA SALLE 

LIVINGSTON 

MC LEAN 

COOK 

PEORIA 

KANE 

KENDALL 

LEE 

DE KALB 

DU PAGE 

LOGAN 

GRUNDY 

IROQUOIS 

FORD 

MC HENRY 

EDGAR 

WARREN 

DOUGLAS 

WOODFORD 

WINNEBAGO 

KANKAKEE 

ADAMS 

MARSHALL 

MOULTRIE 

SANGAMON 

DE WITT 

MACON 

OGLE 

MENARD 

BUREAU 

STEPHENSON 

MC DONOUGH 

KNOX 

HENDERSON 

HENRY 

MADISON 

ST. CLAIR 

BOONE 

STARK 

TAZEWELL 

COLES 

PUTNAM 

WHITESIDE 

MONROE 

MORGAN 

CHRISTIAN 

VERMILION 

CARROLL 



HANCOCK 

MASON 

MERCER 

CLINTON 

WABASH 

RICHLAND 

WHITE 

SHELBY 

MONTGOMERY 

FULTON 

JO DAVIESS 

FAYETTE 

BROWN 

SCHUYLER 

PIKE 

MACOUPIN 

EDWARDS 

SCOTT 

BOND 

CUMBERLAND 

HAMILTON 

CLARK 

JEFFERSON 

RANDOLPH 

WAYNE 

CRAWFORD 

EFFINGHAM 

JERSEY 

MARTON 

JASPER 

CASS 

GREENE 

CLAY 

PERRY 

JACKSON 

FRANKLIN 

LAWRENCE 

GALLATIN 

ALEXANDER 

SALINE 

CALHOUN 

UNION 

WILLIAMSON 

HARDIN 

MASSAC 

JOHNSON 

POPE 

PULASKI 



jiiiiiiil ^""' 




200 225 250 275 $300 
V//////A 



^jmm&i'///////////////////////////////////, 
AAAAAAAAAAyAAAAAAyAAAAAyyyyyY/ 
Y//////////////////A 

mm?//////////////////. 



yi'///////////, 
:v////////////////////, 
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. 

'//////////////////////////A 

mv//////////////////////////////, 
v//////////////////, 



'/////////////////////. 



yaaaaaaaaaaa 
mmmm*. '///////////A/,// 



y/////////////. 

y////////////////////, 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa/, 

/////////////////.■■ 

'/////////////////. 

y//////////////////. 

y//////////////////. 

'/////////////////////// A 

y/////////////////////,// 

y///////////////////// 
Y///////////////////// 

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa/aaa 
yaaaaaaaaaa. 



■aaaaaaaaaaaaaa// 
y////////A 

y////////////////////////, 
y/////////////////////////- 

y/////y///, 

/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 

//aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, 

AyyAyyyyyyAAyAAyAAAAYAAAAA 
y////////////////////////////// 

/aaa 

/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAX 

y////y/y//////////////// 

7/////////////////, 

y//y///////yy//yyyy//. 

'AAA/. 

y//////////////. 



WffZWMZVZA 



y/y/y/y/y/y/yy/. 
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, 
y/yyy/y/yyyyyyyyy/yy/. 
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, 

yyyyyyy/yyyyyyy. 

yaaaaaaaaaaa/ 

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, 

vyyyyyyyyyyyyyyA 

yaaaaaaaaaayaaaaaaaa 

yyyyyyyAyyyAyAyAAAAAA/. 

YAAAAAyAAAAAyAAAyAAyAA 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyAA. 
'yyyyyyyyyyyyyy~ 



kwwwxm Local contribu- 
tions of 50 cents per $100 
of assessed valuation 



■aaaaaaaaa 

yyAAAAYAYA 

'/yyyyyyyyy, 

'A/AAAA/AA/ 

yyyy/yyyy, 
yy/y/y/r 

'AAAAAAA 
'/AAA — 



State aid, 



1947-1948 



State aid needed 
to guarantee $160 Founda- 
tion Level 



yyyyyyyyyyyy/. 
yyyyyyyyyyyyy,. 

yyyAAAAAAAAAA 

yyyy/yyyyyyyy/.\ 

yyAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/. 

yyyyyA. 



'AAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
■AAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
'yAAAAAAAAAAAA. 

yyyyyyyyyyyyy, 
yyyyyyy/yyy//. 

xyaaaaay 



Local funds 
above 50 cents per $100 of 
assessed valuation 

IH Deficit below av- 
erage of 50 cents per $100 
of assessed valuation 



COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 75 

levels of expenditure. If an exhaustive study of this type 2 were made, it 
should contribute to the selection of a level which could be defended with 
more supporting facts. 

A summary of total expenditures represented by Chart 14 follows: 

1. Total local funds at the rate of five mills, $105,205,899.27. 

2. State aid 3 paid in 1947-1948, $32,773,359.92. 

3. Amount of additional aid to guarantee a $160 foundation level, 
$43,770,341. 

4. Local funds above the local contribution computed at five mills, 
$88,392,987.01. 

Assuming complete reorganization so that the potential local taxing 
power could be tapped at the rate of five mills, a total amount of state 
aid necessary to equalize a $160 foundation level in 1947-1948 would have 
been $76,543,700.92. This figure includes an amount of $2,163,943.42 of 
federal aid for vocational work and excludes an amount of $5,058,365.51 
in state aid spent that year for teachers' retirement and school lunches. 
The amount spent for teachers' retirement cannot be shown by counties. 

The foundation level does not constitute all of the support pattern 
as implied in the foundation program concept in this country. Another 
vital part is shown in Chart 14 at the right of the $160 level. This 
section represents the amount of local funds per unit above the re- 
quired amount of local contribution, at a rate of 50 cents, toward the 
foundation level. This last section represents funds which would be 
raised locally at the discretion of the local district. These funds would 
be raised within a framework of local tax leeway for the exercise of local 
initiative. This does not imply that local initiative would not be present 
in the handling of funds for the foundation part of the whole program. 
But local tax leeway serves its useful function in allowing the citizens 
of the district to go as far beyond the foundation level as their resources 
and their desires for better education permit. 

The supporting data for Chart 14 are shown in Table IX. It will be 
noted that counties are listed in the same order as they appear in the 
chart. 

Relationship of School-District Organization 
to the Pattern of Financial Support 

At this point in our discussion let us review the central idea of this 



2 A study of the type completed in the State of New York, entitled What Edu- 
cation Our Money Buys, New York Educational Conference Board, Albany, 1943. 

'Exclusive of $4,180,377.60 for teachers' retirement and $877,987.91 for school 
lunches, but including $2,163,943.42 of federal aid for vocational work. 



76 



FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 



TABLE IX 

Pattern of Financial Support 
With a $160 Foundation Program 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


(6) 








$160 Foundation 


Level 










Local 












Total 


Contribution 






Local Funds 




Current 


Number 


per Pupil 


State Aid 


Additional 


per Pupil 




Expenditures 


of Pupil 


Unit at 


per Pupil 


Aid Needed Unit Above 


County 


in 


Cost 


5 Mill 


Unit 


per Pupil 


5 Mill 




1947-1948 


Units 


Levy Rate 


1947-1948 


Unit 


Levy Rate 


Piatt 


$ 775,613 


3,804 


$190.19 


$23.86 


$ 0.00 


$ 10.16 


Lake 


5,095,404 


20,505 


122.76 


30.38 


6.86 


95.35 


Will 


3,666,828 


16,323 


115.58 


27.62 


16.80 


81.44 


Champaign 


2,357,798 


12,123 


115.16 


28.26 


16.58 


51.06 


La Salle 


2,887,592 


15,073 


115.16 


22.29 


22.55 


54.12 


Livingston 


1,210,239 


7,290 


113.30 


20.93 


25.77 


31.79 


McLean 


2,478,859 


12,836 


112.99 


23.79 


23.22 


56.34 


Cookt 


108,282,382 


423,028 


112.17 


29.11 


18.72 


114.69 


Peoria 


4,100,108 


22,404 


109.41 


29.84 


20.75 


43.75 


Kane 


3,751,371 


18,242 


108.81 


22.85 


28.34 


73.98 


Kendall 


395,648 


2,554 


108.79 


21.36 


29.85 


24.77 


Lee 


1,093,531 


6,366 


107.58 


22.19 


30.23 


42.01 


De Kalb 


1,384,009 


6,850 


106.75 


21.72 


31.53 


73.58 


Du Page 


5,122,114 


19,858 


106.58 


27.84 


25.58 


123.50 


Logan 


960,525 


5,231 


106.20 


24.06 


29.74 


53.36 


Grundy 


622,202 


3,810 


106.18 


26.41 


27.41 


30.72 


Iroquois 


1,397,675 


7,442 


103.67 


23.85 


32.48 


60.28 


Ford 


708,772 


3,697 


103.05 


24.42 


32.53 


64.24 


McHenry 


1,470,340 


7,881 


102.44 


22.34 


35.22 


61.79 


Edgar 


848,511 


4,973 


101.76 


29.84 


28.40 


39.02 


Warren 


694,874 


4,339 


101.38 


26.36 


32.26 


32.40 


Douglas 


738,205 


3,897 


101.04 


26.43 


32.53 


61.95 


Woodford 


825,562 


4,489 


100.62 


25.89 


33.49 


57.39 


Winnebago 


3,762,307 


19,840 


98.88 


30.79 


30.33 


59.96 


Kankakee 


1,393,153 


8,454 


98.79 


24.33 


36.88 


41.67 


Adams 


1,548,231 


8,709 


96.68 


23.51 


39.81 


57.57 


Marshall 


438,553 


2,861 


96.07 


21.14 


42.79 


36.07 


Moultrie 


494,486 


3,059 


94.86 


28.86 


36.28 


37.93 


Sangamon 


3,566,503 


17,602 


94.42 


24.87 


40.71 


83.32 


De Witt 


718,185 


3,840 


94.13 


23.27 


42.60 


69.63 


Macon 


2,609,593 


15,028 


91.16 


26.84 


42.00 


55.64 


Ogle 


1,119,118 


7,082 


90.99 


21.87 


47.14 


45.16 


Menard 


412,408 


2,267 


89.37 


21.10 


49.53 


71.45 


Bureau 


1,306,600 


7,774 


89.31 


26.36 


44.33 


52.39 


Stephenson 


1,220,920 


6,793 


88.98 


21.28 


49.74 


69.47 


McDonough 


993,929 


5,309 


87.85 


24.66 


47.49 


74.71 


Knox 


1,600,792 


9,440 


87.74 


22.27 


49.99 


59.57 


Henderson 


385,943 


2,281 


87.52 


22.04 


50.44 


59.64 


Henry 


1,460,047 


8,522 


85.48 


24.00 


50.52 


61.83 


Madison 


4,160,858 


27,328 


85.25 


34.56 


40.19 


32.45 


St. Clair 


4,706,639 


27,777 


83.88 


21.86 


54.26 


63.71 



t Including Chicago. 



COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 



77 



TABLE IX (Continued) 





(i) 

Current 

Expenditures 

in 

1947-1948 


(2) 

Total 

Number 

of Pupil 

Cost 

Units 


(3) (4) 
$160 Foundation 


(5) 
Level 


(6) 


County 


Local 

Contribution 

per Pupil 

Unit at 

5 Mill 

Levy Rate 


State Aid 
per Pupil 

Unit 
1947-1948 


Additional 

Aid Needed 

per Pupil 

Unit 


Local Funds 
per Pupil 

Unit Above 

5 Mill 
Levy Rate 


Boone 


482,059 


3.119 


80.79 


17.96 


61.25 


55.79 


Stark 


381,322 


2,219 


80.56 


22.82 


56.62 


68.47 


Tazewell 


2,068,025 


13,678 


80.15 


26.74 


53.11 


44.30 


Coles 


957,360 


6.735 


77.39 


39.23 


43.38 


25.52 


Putnam 


203,508 


1,189 


76.30 


25.50 


58.20 


69.36 


Whiteside 


1,544,825 


8,926 


74.32 


25.43 


60.25 


73.32 


Monroe 


280,489 


2.346 


73.66 


17.72 


68.62 


28.18 


Morgan 


945.679 


5,711 


73.65 


22.17 


64.18 


69.77 


Christian 


1,189,725 


7.697 


73.27 


27.84 


58.89 


53.45 


Vermilion 


2,655,108 


15.173 


72.57 


30.32 


57.11 


72.10 


Carroll 


811,240 


4,194 


70.94 


19.80 


69.26 


102.68 


Washington 


305,826 


2.776 


69.53 


28.87 


61.60 


11.77 


Rock Island 


3.185,488 


20,027 


69.36 


26.50 


64.14 


63.20 


Hancock 


973,571 


6.283 


67.45 


23.65 


68.90 


63.85 


Mason 


551.213 


3.925 


67.34 


21.80 


70.86 


51.29 


Mercer 


637,372 


4,235 


66.59 


24.82 


68.59 


59.10 


Clinton 


358.828 


3.599 


66.49 


2229 


71.22 


10.91 


AVabash 


396,781 


2,814 


65.03 


33.91 


61.06 


42.06 


Richland 


642,165 


3,412 


64.25 


33.08 


62.67 


90.88 


White 


790,058 


5,318 


62.35 


42.93 


54.72 


43.28 


Shelby 


863.734 


5,878 


60.20 


29.12 


70.68 


57.62 


Montgomery 


902.947 


6.210 


59.72 


26.85 


73.43 


58.84 


Fulton 


1,503,513 


9,567 


59.36 


27.98 


72.66 


69.81 


Jo Daviess 


517.798 


4,373 


58.67 


17.90 


83.43 


41.83 


Fayette 


741.944 


5,956 


57.37 


32.58 


70.05 


34.61 


Brown 


221.155 


1,572 


55.68 


23.72 


80.60 


61.28 


Schuyler 


296,956 


2,343 


55.47 


27.65 


76.88 


43.68 


Pike 


825,230 


5.543 


54.44 


32.40 


73.16 


62.03 


Macoupin 


1,427,591 


8.761 


53.78 


31.51 


74.71 


77.66 


Edwards 


260,112 


1.969 


52.67 


18.87 


88.46 


60.55 


Scott 


249,464 


1,806 


52.03 


18.82 


89.15 


67.28 


Bond 


382,482 


3,218 


51.72 


22.99 


85.29 


44.14 


Cumberland 


328,631 


2.612 


51.31 


36.06 


72.63 


38.44 


Hamilton 


322,356 


3,112 


50.46 


39.43 


70.11 


13.69 


Clark 


546,085 


4,026 


49.08 


33.61 


77.31 


52.94 


Jefferson 


867,906 


7,398 


49.01 


41.36 


69.63 


26.95 


Randolph 


671.404 


5,438 


48.62 


26.76 


84.62 


48.09 


Wayne 


603,528 


5,302 


48.34 


36.83 


74.83 


28.66 


Crawford 


631,848 


5,746 


48.19 


30.80 


81.01 


30.97 


Effingham 


619,140 


4,437 


48.03 


22.84 


89.13 


68.66 


Jersey 


295,948 


3,096 


47.89 


26.80 


85.31 


20.90 


Marion 


1.200,815 


9.115 


47.82 


32.89 


79.29 


51.03 


Jasper 


269,867 


2.S56 


46.94 


37.79 


75.27 


9.76 


Cass 


458,111 


4.036 


46.22 


20.51 


93.27 


46.77 


Greene 


559,715 


4,422 


45.39 


28.74 


85.87 


52.44 


Clay 


457.073 


4.421 


42.60 


35.35 


82.05 


25.43 



78 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

TABLE IX (Continued) 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) (4) (5) 
$160 Foundation Level 


(6) 


County 


Current 

Expenditures 

in. 

1947-1948 


Total 

Number 

of Pupil 

Cost 

Units 


Local 

Contribution 

per Pupil 

Unit at 

5 Mill 

Levy Rate 


State Aid 
per Pupil 

Unit 
1947-1948 


Local Funds 
Additional per Pupil 
Aid Needed Unit Above 
per Pupil 5 Mill 
Unit Levy Rate 


Perry 


540,931 


4,491 


41.49 


29.96 


88.55 


49.00 


Jackson 


953,171 


7,596 


41.21 


44.62 


74.17 


39.65 


Franklin 


1,376,256 


10,670 


40.19 


54.18 


65.63 


34.61 


Lawrence 


568,090 


4,875 


39.46 


34.30 


86.24 


42.77 


Gallatin 


295,901 


2,667 


37.66 


34.63 


87.71 


38.64 


Alexander 


503,444 


4,344 


33.80 


28.96 


97.24 


53.12 


Saline 


803,425 


7,659 


33.32 


54.26 


72.42 


17.32 


Calhoun 


173,129 


1,650 


32.64 


24.97 


102.39 


47.31 


Union 


491,955 


4,460 


28.55 


35.47 


95.98 


46.28 


Williamson 


1,221,496 


10,269 


26.82 


51.21 


81.97 


40.92 


Hardin 


212,011 


2,188 


25.32 


35.51 


99.17 


36.07 


Massac 


360,340 


3,110 


25.31 


40.89 


93.80 


49.67 


Johnson 


242,452 


2,601 


22.91 


32.25 


104.84 


38.06 


Pope 


155,833 


1,846 


17.79 


36.63 


105.58 


29.99 


Pulaski 


321,390 


3,937 


13.64 


46.87 


99.49 


21.12 


Total 


$226,372,146 


1,135,959 











chapter. Our purpose is to see what the state's financial responsibility for 
public schools would be like under the following conditions: 

1. The utilization of equitable measures of cost or educational need. 

2. The application of the principles of equalization. 

3. A plan of district organization such that all districts are sufficiently 
large and none overlap in responsibility. 

From the vantage point of the last condition, district organization, we 
have used the county only as the statistical unit for analysis. The authors 
do not imply that the county unit should be the plan of organization. The 
county serves as the only governmental subdivision which can be used 
efficiently for purposes of the analyses made in this chapter. An ideal plan 
of organization would no doubt look somewhat more like the hypothetical 
plan developed in Chapter VII. Since such districts do not now exist in 
fact, no governmental agencies would have usable financial statistics re- 
garding them for use in this chapter. One alternative would be to make 
the analysis in terms of existing districts. This would not serve the pur- 
pose of this volume, since the analysis throughout is predicated upon the 
assumption that the existing district system is unsound. Moreover, be- 
cause of the large number of existing local districts, it is virtually im- 
possible to show the finance pattern on the basis of this local unit. 



COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 79 

Furthermore, it would be difficult to show comparable situations among 
districts with so many complications of types with overlapping bound- 
aries. It is, therefore, evident that an illogical patchwork of districts 
stands as a barrier to clean-cut designing of state aid plans such as we 
consider hypothetically in this chapter. Just as it is statistically im- 
possible to show under existing district organization an equitable plan of 
state-local finance for analyses such as those made here, so is it tech- 
nically impossible to draft state aid formulas which would suit the re- 
quirements of the most acceptable principles of school finance. 

That is to say, one step in moving toward an ultimately sound and 
defensible pattern of finance in Illinois is to achieve reform in district 
organization. Though steps toward improvement of adequacy of support 
may be needed to augment steps in organization reform, an equitable 
pattern of financial support is simply not possible under the existing sys- 
tem. It will be possible only when the picture can be portrayed as simply 
as it is in Chart 14, whatever foundation level and whatever rate of local 
contribution is agreed upon and whatever array of local units be chosen 
— be they counties or be they some other geographical subdivisions — 
just so they meet the conditions of unity and size which will permit the 
achievement of the foundation level in all areas of the state. 

As has been pointed out earlier, the small-district structure has en- 
abled much property to escape some of its fair share of the burden of 
school support through its fortuitous location, district wise, with respect 
to the number of children to be educated. 

Although this monograph does not settle the question of organization, 
it should be recognized that the experiences of many states with the 
county, or some comparable area, as a single administrative district, or as 
a district intermediate in function, merit careful study. That is, the use- 
fulness of the county as a "financial" unit should not be overlooked, even 
if ultimate units are smaller than the county. 

It is clear from the foregoing that the reorganization problem and the 
finance problem go hand-in-hand. In the opinion of the writers, an 
effective solution to either problem is to be found only in establishing a 
"model" or a "target" plan which would provide the media for realizing 
whatever state-wide standard the people of Illinois would wish to support 
for all the children in the state. It is hoped that the explanatory analyses 
such as those presented in this volume will be suggestive of the types of 
"thinking ahead" which will help the people of Illinois move in the right 
direction. Because of the intimate relationship between district reor- 
ganization and finance, the state plan of attack on these problems should 
be unified. 

A basic doctrine to guide such planning is "local initiative" in ad- 



80 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

ministering the educational program. This doctrine should not interfere 
with the basic objective of state-wide interest of all citizens for a mini- 
mum level of support for all children in the state. Neither wholesome 
local control nor equalization of a foundation program may be achieved 
through a structure of district organization which prevents them. It is 
not a threat to local autonomy to enact legislation which will mandate 
or otherwise "control" the reforms in district organization without which 
effective local action and effective provision of a state-wide foundation 
program of education are not possible. For that matter, a form of 
localism which impedes progress in advancing the state's educational ob- 
jectives through inefficient local units tends to bring about undesirable 
centralization of authority as the remaining alternative. Thus the defec- 
tions of inefficient local units come to justify the introduction of a type 
of central control over all local units which violates the principle of local 
initiative. It would seem better that the state, through its legislature, 
control — by mandating, if necessary — the nature of district organiza- 
tion. This would be consistent with the constitutional responsibility of 
the legislature and would be the first step in making local control of edu- 
cation effective. 

In short, if the objective is a state-wide foundation program through 
a system of local district organization, it is essential: 

1. That districts be such that local responsibility can be depended 
upon, 

2. That districts be such that a comprehensive educational program 
may be provided efficiently, and 

3. That sufficient funds be made available to pay for the services re- 
quired. 

The writers took the view, therefore, that it is better to consider 
legislation which looks to basic reform than it is to attempt the futile 
struggle of patching gaps in administrative or financial structure. What 
is needed is not the treating of symptoms, but a cure. 

This volume does not attempt to draft a blueprint for this action. 
We do feel, however, that our analyses justify a philosophy or a point of 
view which should lead to constructive action. It is clear to the writers 
that the organization problem and the financial support problem are but 
two sides of the same coin. 

Practical Limits to Efficiency 
Gained by Reorganization 

It is often pointed out, in discussions on reorganization, that large 
units are more efficient. Attention is often called to the fact that small 



COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 81 

classes in small districts raise the pupil-teacher ratio and thus the cost 
per pupil, and that many special educational services, such as health 
service, guidance, and extramural programs, are not possible in small dis- 
tricts with small schools. In general, this is all true. For a given level 
of educational service, economies of large attendance units, possible in 
large administrative units, offset, in great part, added costs of transpor- 
tation and school plant construction. There are two considerations, how- 
ever, which should be understood: 

1. Effecting the economies of reorganization will not alone make 
possible a level of financial support needed in all districts. This is dem- 
onstrated in part in the analysis of Chart 14. In later chapters a de- 
tailed analysis is made of the scope of the pupil transportation and the 
school housing and costs thereof, under assumed conditions of optimum 
district organization. 

2. Reorganization does not potentially eliminate all of the costs asso- 
ciated with geographical distribution of pupils. This is evident from 
the analysis of Chapter V. 

The first point is, in effect, that the efficiency achieved through reor- 
ganization means no saving to the taxpayer where the existing level of 
expenditure is insufficient to support an adequate program of education, 
even after reorganization. 

The second point leads to the conclusion that the state finance plan 
should take into account those costs which district reorganization cannot 
eliminate. This section of the report examines the scope of such costs. 

Looking forward to the elimination of inefficient local districts, we 
should like to know where the tax money spent on operating the program 
will go in relation to two types of costs. Chart 15 shows the relation- 
ship of classroom to non-classroom costs as developed in Chapter V. 

For example, it will be noted that in Pope County, even after reor- 
ganization, approximately $63 of every $100 spent on education will go 
for classroom costs. These costs are associated with actual instruction, 
and are constituted of such items as salaries, maintenance and operation 
of buildings, and supplies. About $37 of every $100 of expenditure may 
be expected to go for non-classroom costs arising from sparsity of school 
population. Expressed another way, this means that $100 per pupil would 
yield a $63 education. 

If this situation is compared with Cook County, excluding Chicago, an 
extreme variation is noted. Few children arc sparsely settled in the latter 
county, and it is estimated that in that county an expenditure of $100 
per pupil would yield, on the average, a $93 education. 

Taking the state as a whole, it is estimated in Chapter V that 12.9 



CHART 15. Where the Money Goes 



COUNTY 



EACH $100 OF SCHOOL EXPENDITURES 



POPE 

WASHINGTON 

BROWN 

SCHUYLER 

JASPER 

HENDERSON 

MONROE 

CALHOUN 

PUTNAM 

SCOTT 

MARSHALL 

CUMBERLAND 

JOHNSON 

IROQUOIS 

STARK 

PIKE 

KENDALL 

CLINTON 

GALLATIN 

HANCOCK 

JO DAVIESS 

WOODFORD 

MERCER 

FORD 

LIVINGSTON 

SHELBY 

MENARD 

EDWARDS 

HAMILTON 

WAYNE 

MASON 

PIATT 

FAYETTE 

BOND 

CARROLL 

GREENE 

DOUGLAS 

CLARK 

MOULTRIE 

BUREAU 

EFFINGHAM 

OGLE 

HARDIN 

GRUNDY 

MC DONOUGH 

EDGAR 

LOGAN 

RANDOLPH 

JERSEY 

CLAY 

WARREN 

DE WITT 

LEE 

FULTON 

MACOUPIN 

UNION 

MONTGOMERY 

CASS 

MORGAN 

WHITE 

CRAWFORD 

MCHENRY 

PERRY 

HENRY 

CHRISTIAN 

MC LEAN 

LAWRENCE 

BOONE 

DE KALB 

PULASKI 

KANKAKEE 

MASSAC 

CHAMPAIGN 

STEPHENSON 

JACKSON 

JEFFERSON 

ADAMS 

WABASH 

ST. CLAIR 

MARION 

KNOX 

WHITESIDE 

ROCK ISLAND 

LA SALLE 

COLES 

RICHLAND 

SALINE 

ALEXANDER 

WILL 

TAZEWELL 

VERMILION 

SANGAMON 

WILLIAMSON 

FRANKLIN 

MACON 

WINNEBAGO 

PEORIA 

MADISON 

LAKE 

KANE 

DU PAGE 

COOK 




COMBINED STATE-LOCAL PATTERN 



83 



per cent of the total educational need is required to take care of non- 
classroom costs attributable to sparsity of population. This means that, 
on the average, an expenditure of $100 may be expected to yield $87 
worth of effective education. This estimate is based on two conditions: 
(1) complete reorganization, and (2) a foundation level of approximately 
$160 per pupil unit. 

There is evidence to indicate that at levels above this figure the non- 
classroom costs would constitute a somewhat lesser percentage of the 
total need. In the study on transportation we found that under optimum 
conditions of reorganization in this state, school transportation would 
cost about $17% million, at 1948 prices. However, it should be em- 
phasized that optimum conditions of reorganization in Illinois will not 
get all pupils into attendance districts large enough so that the non- 
classroom costs attributable to sparsity will consist solely of transporta- 
tion. Some schools smaller than normal can still be justified because of 
distances required for transporting pupils, and for other reasons. 

It will be noted in Table IV (Chapter V) , for instance, that there are 
25 counties each with fewer than 673 pupils in high school. Assuming 
that in each one of these counties only one high school were operated, 
these schools would be smaller than normal and, therefore, would require 
some additional allowance for small size, as well as for transportation, 
in an equalized foundation program. There are some areas within most, 
if not all, counties where a few elementary and high schools smaller than 
normal must be operated, and where an allowance for transportation 
alone will not constitute the total adjustment in measuring the educa- 
tional need. Therefore, the total sparsity correction at a foundation 
level of $160 per pupil will be nearer $22 million than the estimate of 
$17% million for transportation. 

The reason is this. In developing the sparsity correction, the part 
attributable to transportation was geared to the $160 pupil unit value. 
The criterion was the average transportation cost at 1948 prices, the same 
one used in the study on transportation. 

Now, if little or no transportation were operated, there would be a 
maximum number of small schools, and hence an attempt to equalize a 
foundation support level would involve a sparsity correction solely of 
the small-school type. Then, on expenditure levels about $160, the extra 
costs would be expected to bear about the same relationship to classroom 
costs as they would bear on lower levels. The. reason is that they would 
be more intimately related to classroom costs, since most of such extra 
costs are involved in teachers' salaries. 

But, upon completion of reorganized districts, most of the sparsity cor- 
rection would be translated into transportation cost, and only a rela- 



84 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

tively minor part would be left as small-school correction. The latter 
part would be expected to increase proportionately to classroom costs at 
foundation levels above $160. 

We do not know how transportation costs, indexed to 1948 prices, 
would be related to foundation levels above $160 per pupil unit. How- 
ever, it should not be difficult to follow up this study to assess this rela- 
tionship in future years as reorganization proceeds and as trends in 
transportation cost can be noted. 

Educational Expenditures Not Already Included 

Some reference should be made to the remainder of school expen- 
ditures in 1947-1948, so that the reader will have a better perspective of 
the problems involved in considering all needs of the educational enter- 
prise. 

Expenses for Offices of County Superintendents and Township Trea- 
surers. The pattern of expenditures for current operation has been illus- 
trated with omissions of minor expenses for school lunches, offices of 
county superintendents, and township treasurers. However, data on these 
expenses are shown in Table VIII. The expenses of offices of county su- 
perintendents and township treasurers have been singled out for com- 
parison because of a widespread interest in appraising the needs of these 
offices. The counties are listed in this table according to ability, from the 
most able to the poorest. Expenditures are shown as amount per pupil 
unit of need. Total amounts by counties (not shown) are available in 
public records. However, they may be computed from data shown in 
this report. 

In 1947-1948 a total amount of $1,189,174.28 was expended for the 
offices of county superintendents. Many people visualize the role of this 
office as serving a larger responsibility in providing specialized services, 
involving financial responsibility. 

A total amount of $829,861.80 was expended on the offices of township 
treasurers. 

Capital Outlay and Debt Service. Expenditures for debt service and 
capital outlay have not been included in the analyses of this chapter. 
Such expenditures do not lend themselves to the same treatment as do 
current operating expenditures. A discussion of the financing of buildings 
is therefore reserved for a later chapter (Chapter IX) in which school 
housing needs will be studied in relation to enlarging attendance units. 



CHAPTER VII 

A HYPOTHETICAL PLAN OF OPTIMUM 
DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 

Conceding that drastic redistricting is desirable, even essential, if the 
state's constitutional obligation to "provide a thorough and efficient sys- 
tem of free schools whereby all children of this state may receive a good 
common school education" is to be met economically and equably — 

How much would it cost? 

Redistricting implies two additional major expenditures: 

Initially, a huge building program to give all the consolidated school 
children from a thousand small schools the same advantages of safe, 
modern, well-equipped classrooms, gymnasiums, laboratories, and other 
plant facilities that their city cousins have; and 

Permanently, transportation. 

How much would it cost to build and convert enough Illinois schools 
to give every child in the state approximately equal opportunity for a 
"good common school education"? 

And how much would it cost each year to carry to and from school 
all those who live too far to walk? 

First, of course, you would have to know how many schools it would 
take and then how many children you would have to carry and how far. 

There are many approaches; a number of them already have been dis- 
cussed in previous chapters, and this book does not attempt to say which 
ones should be adopted. 

But to get any definite and useful estimates at all, you have to start 
somewhere. 

So as a basis for making some exploratory studies of these matters, 
we devised a tentative and hypothetical attendance district pattern for 
the state. 

For this purpose, each county in Illinois was used as a geographical 
unit. It was imagined that in each county, schools were so carefully or- 
ganized that each had precisely the right number of schools that it needed, 
in precisely the right places to be most effective. 

Where would they be? 

Our staff undertook to find out — starting with the assumption, based 
on the results of several studies, 1 that the minimum sizes for schools for 

1 Several reviewers of the preliminary drafts of this report wondered whether or 
not these minimum sizes were not too high. It is no doubt true that in the fore- 
seeable future, there are many areas in Illinois in which, for lack of the very re- 
sources to which we refer in this study, such minima are impracticable. It is like- 
wise apparent that estimates of schoolhouse construction and pupil transportation 
costs based on this level of consolidation of attendance units will tend to exceed 

[85] 



86 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

greatest efficiency were approximately 700 pupils for high schools and 
300 for elementary schools. 

In locating these hypothetical attendance centers, the procedure 
was to: 

1. Assign each county at least one high school. 

2. Place one elementary attendance center at each high school center. 

3. Allow additional schools only as centers could support a minimum 
of 700 high school pupils or 300 elementary pupils without taking pupils 
from other centers. 

4. Allow the maximum number of centers within these limitations, 
but place no maximum limit on the size of enrollment. 

5. Cross no county lines. 

6. Locate schools in the largest, most centrally situated cities and 
villages, to serve contiguous rural territory also. 

7. Place the center where the least amount of transportation is re- 
quired, when a choice is to be made between population centers. 

8. Assign each pupil to the school (within the county) nearest his 
home and transport him by the most direct route. 

9. Avoid distances requiring any pupil to ride more than 45 minutes 
to school. 

In outlining hypothetical attendance districts 2 and designating at- 
tendance centers, State Highway Department maps showing congested 

amounts which reorganization in the foreseeable future will require. In this connec- 
tion, therefore, the minima of 700 pupils per high school and 300 per elementary 
school must be considered useful only as bases for determining the nature of maxi- 
mum cost factors related to reorganization. We emphasize that we have chosen 
these minima for purposes of a focal point from which to make estimates. We do 
not propose such minima as standards. See : 

McLure, William P. Let Us Pay for the Kind of Education We Need. Univer- 
sity, Mississippi: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Mississippi, 1948. 
pp. 57-61. 

Morrison, J. C, and Butterworth, J. E., directors. The Intermediate District in 
New York State— Special Studies. Albany: University of the State of New York. 
Bulletin No. 1356, 1948. pp. 83-84. 

Mort, Paul R. The Measurement of Educational Need. New York: Bureau of 
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1923. 

American Council of Education, State Sup-port for Public Education. Washing- 
ton, D. C: 1933. 

Strayer, G. D., director. A Report of a Survey of Public Education in the State 
of West Virginia. Charleston: Legislative Interim Committee, 1945. 

Sumption, M. R., and Beem, H. D. A Guide to School Reorganization in Illinois. 
Educational Research Circular No. 59. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, Col- 
lege of Education, Bureau of Research and Service, 1947. pp. 36-47. 

2 The term "attendance districts" is used synonymously with attendance units or 
attendance areas, as distinguished from administrative districts or administrative 
units. 



OPTIMUM DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 87 

areas 3 and dwellings in rural areas were used. The population of con- 
gested areas was taken from the 1940 census figures. A template was 
used to count the dwellings with respect to their proximity to the pro- 
posed centers. Ratios were established to estimate possible enrollment 
from the populations of the shaded areas and from the number of dots 
representing dwellings. 

The following steps show the procedure for estimating the ratio of 
school children to dwellings in rural areas: 

1. All family dwellings 4 in a sample of 49 counties were counted 
except those in incorporated areas and congested non-incorporated areas 
having more than 25 dwellings. 

2. The total elementary school enrollment of children for each county 
was determined from the 1946 Annual Statistical Report of the Superin- 
tendent of Public Instruction. The number of children estimated for all 
incorporated and congested non-incorporated areas of a given county was 
subtracted from the total school enrollment. The remainder was the 
number of children in areas where dwellings could be counted. 

3. The ratios for these counties ranged from .35 to .94, the average 
being .55 elementary pupils per dwelling. This ratio was rounded off to 
.60 in recognition of the anticipated effect over the next 12 to 15 years of 
the increased birth rate. 5 Since the four high school grades may be taken 
to represent one-half of the eight elementary grades, .30 was taken as 
the ratio of high school pupils per dwelling. 

A different procedure was required in urban centers. Eighty-five per 
cent of the census count of 5-to-19-year-olds was assumed as the ex- 
pected school attendance rate for the 12 grades under consideration. This 
allowed for increases in this population classification since 1940 and for 
some percentage of pupils repeating grades. This was found to bear a 
one to five ratio to total population in 1940 in urban centers in Illinois. 
Twenty per cent of population reported in the 1940 census, therefore, was 
taken as the estimate of expected potential school enrollment in urban 
centers in laying out hypothetical attendance centers. Two-thirds of this 
was allocated to elementary and one-third to secondary centers in locat- 
ing respectively the elementary and secondary attendance centers. This 

3 Mostly incorporated villages or cities. 

4 As shown on General County Highway maps for the State of Illinois prepared 
by the Bureau of Highway Research of the Department of Public Works and Build- 
ings, in cooperation with the Public Roads Administration of the Federal Works 
Agency, 1947. 

8 It is predicted that the 5-to-19-year-old age group in the population will reach 
its peak in 1960. Whelpton, P. K., and others. Forecasts of the Population of the 
United States, 1945-1975. Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1947. 
pp. 49, 109. 




CHART 16. Hypothetical School Districts 
Franklin County 

ELEMENTARY ATTENDANCE DISTRICTS 

School Center 
^^ m ^^ m District Boundary 

HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE DISTRICTS 

J School Center 

■"^^^^" District Boundary 



OPTIMUM DISTRICT ORGANIZATION 89 

approximate method of computing numbers of pupils was considered ac- 
curate enough for purposes of applying the procedures for determining 
attendance district boundaries. 

Actual location of potential centers and boundaries of contiguous 
rural territory was accomplished by inspecting the maps and applying 
the accepted criteria, after noting villages and cities of various sizes, den- 
sity of family dwellings in rural areas, road patterns, and natural geo- 
graphical barriers. The districts were usually centered around villages 
and cities of more than 2500 population. The bounds were determined in 
such manner that all dwellings in a given district would be nearer the 
logical center than they would be to the center of an adjoining area. 
Some consideration was given to geographical barriers. Information was 
not available to consider socio-economic factors that would modify boun- 
daries in actual practice. However, these factors usually have operated 
in the past to create districts of such shape as to increase transportation 
and housing costs rather than to decrease them. 

An illustration of typical attendance districts is shown in Chart 16. 
It will be noted that attendance areas for high schools include consider- 
ably more territory than do elementary areas. This is in line with actual 
practice. It will be noted further that the bounds of the two types of 
districts overlap. This condition does not affect the estimate of transpor- 
tation costs, as will be seen in a later chapter on transportation. Fur- 
thermore, this condition is not necessarily contrary to good actual prac- 
tice, especially when the administrative unit contains more than one high 
school attendance area. 

Hypothetical districts of these types were outlined for every county 
in the state in preparation for the next tasks of estimating housing and 
transportation costs. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE SCOPE OF THE TRANSPORTATION 
OF PUPILS 

The transportation of school children is one of the most important 
problems connected with the organization of efficient attendance units in 
rural areas. This chapter is an examination of the potential cost of trans- 
portation after these units are formed. 

The central question is this: In terms of 1948 prices, what would 
be the cost of transporting children living beyond reasonable walking 
distance to school centers where sufficient numbers of children could be 
brought together for an adequate and efficient educational program? 

The purpose of this chapter is merely to determine the ultimate cost 
of this service under assumed conditions of complete reorganization of 
school attendance centers. It is not to propose revisions in the present 
methods of financing or operating transportation. 

The work of this chapter includes development of measures for esti- 
mating transportation cost and the use of them to compute the estimated 
cost in the hypothetical districts. 

Determining Measures for Estimating Transportation Cost 

Various studies have reported measures for estimating a reasonable 
allowance for transportation cost from easily accessible data without 
recourse to the laborious process of planning individual bus routes. Some 
20 years ago Burns x and Johns 2 developed useful formulas for estimating 
such cost in school attendance districts from data on density of trans- 
ported school population and the number of pupils transported. Hut- 
chins 3 developed a more complicated formula based on eight factors: 
number of pupils transported, daily miles of bus travel, density of popu- 
lation, condition of roads, number of pupils transported per bus, per- 
centage of bus capacity utilized, number of bus miles per square mile, 
and the percentage of forward-facing seats per bus. 

Measures of these types available in the literature do not afford a 
convenient basis for preparing an estimate of transportation cost in 
Illinois. They are inapplicable for several reasons but chiefly because of 

1 Burns, R. L. The Measurement of the Need for Transporting Pupils. New 
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927. 

2 Johns, R. L. State and Local Administration of School Transportation. New 
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1928. 

, 3 Ray, K. C, and Woodford, D. The Administration of Pupil Transportation in 
Ohio. Columbus: State of Ohio Department of Education, 1944. See also Hutchins, 
C. D. The Distribution of State Funds for Pupil Transportation, in Abstracts of 
Doctoral Dissertations, No. 26. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1938. 

[90] 



TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS 91 

changes in price values, data unavailable in some areas, and the large 
amount of statistical computations involved. Certainly, an even more 
impossible task would be to trace individual bus routes for the entire 
state. 

The most promising means for making this estimate was to use certain 
data appearing on official highway maps, along with data from official 
school reports. The maps showed the various types of roads, location and 
size of cities and villages, and location of family dwellings outside cities 
and villages. Therefore, assuming that a high correlation existed be- 
tween the number of dwellings and the number of children to be trans- 
ported, it was believed that facts about dwellings could be used to infer 
potential transportation cost in attendance districts of the type assumed 
in this study. 

Dwellings — Their Pattern of Dispersion 

With a given number of rural children, the single factor having most 
effect upon cost of transportation is density of population. Where few 
pupils live along roads, buses travel long distances to obtain efficient 
loads. Many buses cannot travel such distances in some areas because of 
limited time for getting pupils to school. The result is that they carry 
small pay loads. In other areas where many pupils live along the roads, 
pay loads are larger and per capita costs are lower. 

An illustration of contrasting population density is shown in Charts 
17 and 18. The reader will note that Chart 17 shows a typical area where 
the rural population is sparsely settled. Dwellings, shown by solid black 
dots, are far apart, and little clustering of houses into villages is notice- 
able. This condition means large per capita cost for transportation. 
Chart 18 shows the reverse situation with more houses per square mile 
and considerably more clustering of population in small villages. This 
chart illustrates a situation where pupils may be transported at less ex- 
pense per person than in the former example. 

The problem at this stage was to find a good measure combining two 
characteristics of rural population: (1) Density of rural school popula- 
tion to be transported, and (2) character of its dispersion. Density of 
population was indicated by the average number of rural dwellings per 
square mile for the attendance district. The second characteristic was 
the amount of concentration or clustering of population in small villages. 
Several alternatives were tried in this study, but only the method finally 
decided upon is described here. 4 

The measure decided upon was one indicating both degree of density 

4 A complete description of the development of all measures is reported in 
Appendix II. 




CHART 17. An Example of Widely Dispersed 
Population and Little Clustering 




CHART 18. An Example of Widely Dispersed 
Population and Much Clustering 



94 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

of rural school population and the nature of its dispersion. These two 
facts were taken into account by estimating the sum of the nearest dis- 
tances from individual dwellings to the logical school district center by 
the most direct available roads. Distances of dwellings within one and 
one-half miles of school were not computed, assuming that pupils living 
in them were within reasonable walking distance. 

An illustration of how the summation of dwelling-to-school distances 
was computed is shown in Chart 19. Note that a grid of broken lines is 
superimposed upon a map in such manner that the center portion placed 
over the school center (Stewardson) is drawn to scale to surround terri- 
tory within one and one-half miles of walking distance. On a map with 
a scale of one-half inch per mile this central block is one inch square. 
Surrounding this central block are contour bands one mile in width 
diagonally with the roads. The distances were computed in this manner: 
Dwellings in the central block or first contour were not counted for the 
reason already stated. Dwellings located within the second contour 
(the first mile-wide band around the central block) were counted, and the 
total number obtained was multiplied by 2. Dwellings located within 
the third contour were counted, and the total number obtained was mul- 
tiplied by 8, and so on for the other contours. The total number of miles 
of dwelling-to-school distances for the district was the summation of the 
products of the frequencies of dwellings in each contour, except the first, 
multiplied by the respective number of miles by road that each contour 
was from the center. 

Table X shows the computations of dwelling-to-school distances of 
this district. 

It was a simple and practical matter to prepare a grid to an appro- 
priate scale on transparent material so that dwellings in all hypothetical 
districts could be counted in the proper contours approximating the ac- 
tual distances from their location to the designated school centers. In 
this manner all dwellings were counted in rural areas of Illinois located 
more than one and one-half miles from the school center designated in 
each hypothetical high school district. The summation of dwelling-to- 
school distances was obtained for each hypothetical high school district. 
It was noted earlier that hypothetical elementary attendance districts 
were outlined for possible use in the later job of estimation. However, 
as it will be explained, in developing the method of estimation from em- 
pirical data in a sample of 31 community unit districts it was found that 
the best estimate was obtained by using the areas designated by the hy- 
pothetical high school districts as a basis for estimating transportation 
for both elementary and high school pupils. The method of using the 
computations of dwelling-to-school distances for estimating transporta- 
tion cost will be explained later. 




CHART 19. How to Estimate Dwelling-to-School 
Distances -Stewardson District 



School District Boundary 
Mile Contours 



96 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

TABLE X 

Computations of Dwelling-to-School 
Distances of the Stewardson District 



Contour 
Band 


Average 

Distance of 

Contour Band 

from School 

(in miles) 


Number 

of 

Family 

Dwellings 


Dwelling-to-School 
Distances 
(in miles) 


1st 


1% mile 


not 







maximum 


counted 




2nd 


2 


29 


58 


3rd 


3 


76 


228 


4th 


4 


77 


308 


5th 


5 


97 


485 


6th 


6 


177 


1,062 


7th 


7 


142 


994 


8th 


8 


56 


448 


9th 


9 


43 


387 


10th 


10 


12 


120 


11th 


11 


3 


33 


Totals 




712 


4,123 





The next job was to repeat this procedure of counting dwelling-to- 
school distances in a sample of actual school districts most nearly com- 
parable to the hypothetical ones. The purpose of applying this procedure 
to a sample of actual districts was to develop a criterion of cost for 
association with data on dwellings. 

This was accomplished through the cooperation of 31 community unit 
school districts supplying maps indicating location of all pupils in rural 
areas. 

Cost of Transportation in Actual School Districts 
Similar to Hypothetical Districts 

Investigation at this stage of the study turned to an analysis of 
present practice to discover a basis of securing a defensible cost that 
might be used as a criterion in this sample of districts. Questionnaires 
for cost data were mailed to about 100 school districts operating transpor- 
tation in Illinois, including the 31 districts mentioned above. Complete 
data were received in 69 replies. 

The results of analyzing these replies are shown in tables that fol- 
low. Table XI shows expenditures for major items of expense for buses 
of different seating capacities. It is noted that highest, median, and low- 
est expenditures are shown for buses of each size according to purchase 
prices, shown in Column 3, and total cost per mile, shown in Column 11. 

It will be noted that the buses represented by these figures included 



TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS 



97 



CO 

< 



a 




SI 


* 


an 


a 

CO 


H 


izi 


£ 

H 

3 


fa 
fa 


fa 


w 


a 




^ 


fa 




o 


5 


CO 






fa 


l*i 


O 


a 




H 


CO 


i— < 


co 


« 


p 


O 


a 


1-5 

<< 




— 1 


S3 
O 


S 


fa 


o 




H 


a 




8 


O 


P 


'A 


H 


a 


Q 


M 


I?; 


O 


a 


o 


fa 


o 










o 


■^ 


oo 


CN 


1 - 


CO 


I> 


, — i 


*c 


CM 


■~H 


en 


CO 


in 


CM 






"O 


x>- 


CN 


co 


00 




m 


l> 




00 


TH 


n 


CO 


N 


CO 






■«* 


CO 




•"# 


CN 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


o 


-f 


■*t< 


CO 


-1 


-^ 


iH 


« Pi J} 


CN 


i-H 


i— i 


CO 


(M 


1— 1 


»o 


Ol 


i-H 


CO 


a 


v < 


CO 


CM 


t— 4 


O mS 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


© 


o 


© 


O 


o 


CO 


O 


o 


3 


O 






«/# 
































^ co 

O £ <U 

H -5 


o 


o 


o 


o 


«5 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


© 


o 


— 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


00 


-* 


oo 


CM 


o 


Tfl 


■* 


o 


co 


-r 


o 




■^1 


p 


co 




■* 


en 


n 


£- 


■>CH 




00 


**. 


o 


CO 


o 




































<& 


m" 


en 


-* 


CO 


en 


T^" 


co 


en 


•* 


•* 


2 


in" 


t--' 


oo 


00 



% ~ Pi 






Sfa 

fa 






ooo i-ocno cooo 

lO m -* N !» CO lO O O 

^Hrti-i h on hco 



o o i-- 

CM CM CO 



iO CO »n 

N CN r-l 

CN ■* -# 



o o >n moo 

O O i-H C-lOO 

co oo co Hccca 



n io io >o co en 

CON O 00 O) C-l 

co CN ^ -* m io 



©mo moo 

O CM O ^h 00 o 

en r-i en moo 



o en o 
■* co co 
rr cm co 



00 i-0> CO 

io co f 



O i-i o 
o oo o 
en >-i en 



o O iO 


OOO 


— 1 o o 


'OOO 


— ■ CM N 


t< ho 


•=> a> <0: 


CN) o o 


oo o m 


•O IO o 


CM CM CM 


HfO 


ON iO 


■* o i-i 


t}< CM O 






00, m IO 
co" co' CN 



K ^ !-) 



co. cq m 

■* CO' CN 



ooo 

>Q O O 

oo --H ci 






W <-. h-i 



00 CO CM_ 

Tfi •*' CO' 



ffiSfa! 



98 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

many combinations of standard bodies and chassis on the market. All 
buses met minimum specifications established by the Office of the Super- 
intendent of Public Instruction. 

To check actual prices of buses purchased since 1940 against average 
prices at which they might have been purchased in the year 1948, list 
quotations of retail list prices were obtained from practically all nation- 
ally recognized manufacturers of bodies and chassis. Median list prices, 
as of October, 1948, are shown in Table XII for various combinations of 

TABLE XII 

Prices of Buses for Various 
Combinations of Chassis and Body * 

Pupil Seating 

Capacity High Median Low 





22-24 $4,220.57 $3,522.01 


$3,124.45 




28-30 3,875.15 3,772.37 


3,717.00 




34-36 4,430.82 3,986.91 


3,419.60 




40-42 5,246.48 4,475.18 


3,973.86 




46-48 5,823.75 4,754.01 


4,146.00 




52-54 5,706.50 5,128.45 


4,470.10 




60- 6,984.00 6,249.00 


5,559.50 




66- 6,692.75 5,974.00 


5,914.00 


* Qu. 


stations received from nationally-known manufacturers 


in October, 1948, for retail list 



chassis and bodies. Purchase prices of buses in operation were slightly 
lower that the median prices of various possible combinations available 
on the market during 1948. 

Figures shown in Table XI for depreciation were estimated. Salaries 
of drivers, on the average, did not appear to be excessive, especially since 
adults were required for this purpose by law. The cost of insurance ap- 
peared reasonable and adequate. There was no storage cost for 30 per 
cent of the buses included in this study. In all probability, where 
buses had inadequate protection from the weather, increased expenses 
showed up in maintenance and depreciation. It was difficult to evaluate 
the reasonableness of expenditures for fuel and maintenance. For ex- 
ample, near the bottom of the table in Columns 8 and 10, it is noted that 
the bus of median mileage cost of the 46 capacity buses had an expense of 
$305 for fuel and a total annual mileage of 8640. On the other hand, the 
highest expenditure bus of this capacity per mile had an expense of $508 
for fuel, yet a total annual mileage of only 7030. Lack of uniformity in 
itemizing these types of expense accounted for the variations. Then too, 
lack of uniformity in expense for maintenance and repairs is under- 



TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS 99 

standable because of varying ages of buses, coupled with the fact that 
these figures are taken for only one year. Average practice showed more 
uniformity when total annual expenditures, including the estimate for 
depreciation, were related to total annual bus mileage. 

The conclusion reached from these analyses of average practice was 
that median costs per bus mile for buses of various seating capacities 
appeared to be reasonable as a basis for developing a criterion of potential 
cost in the 31 community unit districts included in this study. 

The Criterion of Transportation Cost 

The criterion of potential transportation cost was developed for each 
of the 31 districts in the following manner: 

1. Theoretical bus routes were laid out on each map to transport 
all children in the rural areas to the largest city or village in the district. 

2. Routes were laid out in such manner as to limit the time of travel 
of students one way to approximately 45 minutes and to permit door-to- 
door pick ups. 

3. One extra bus was allowed for each eight regular buses for emer- 
gency purposes and for transporting some pupils remaining at school after 
regular hours to participate in special activities such as athletics, 
band, etc. 

4. Routes were planned to use bus sizes ranging from 28 to 46 seat- 
ing capacity, depending upon the length of route and number of children. 
In a few instances auxiliary routes were planned with the use of station 
wagons. 

5. Total annual bus mileage, equivalent in cost to mileage of 40 
capacity buses, was obtained for the district, based on 180 days. 

6. An allowance of $1000 was added for each emergency bus, the 
assumption being that under an expanded program of this type, estimated 
average mileage cost could be reduced sufficiently to compensate fully 
for this emergency service. 

7. The total estimated cost (criterion) for each district was computed 
by allowing the following median costs per bus mile in practice in 1948 
for district-owned buses: 46-pupil capacity, $.25; 40-pupil capacity, 
$.24; 34-pupil capacity, $.23; 28-pupil capacity, $.22; and large station 
wagon, $.17. These figures included allowance for capital replacements. 

Method for Estimating Transportation Cost 
Throughout the State 

A considerable amount of experimentation was done with empirical 
data on the 31 community unit districts already mentioned to develop a 



100 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 



TABLE XIII 

Basic Data Used in Developing 
the Formula for Estimating Transportation Cost 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 




Total Estimated 


Sum of 






Transportation 


Dwelling-to- 


Number of 




Cost 


School Miles 


Family- 


District 


(The Criterion) 


(One Way) 


Dwellings * 


Mount Auburn 


$ 9,968 


1,392 


270 


Pana 


24,561 


4,742 


704 


Stonington 


8,992 


1.121 


255 


Taylorville 


21,779 


4,509 


695 


Marshall 


28,669 


8.123 


1,151 


Oakland 


13.027 


1,749 


407 


Farmer City 


17,386 


1,865 


410 


Wapella 


12,369 


1,349 


288 


Weldon 


7.319 


837 


195 


Kansas 


17,404 


4,920 


687 


Paris 


37,075 


10,592 


1,327 


Albion 


15,994 


4,685 


811 


West Salem 


11,561 


3.101 


575 


Argenta 


12,500 


2,224 


387 


Blue Mound 


10,390 


1,926 


327 


Cerro Gordo 


19,093 


3.735 


671 


Blandinsville 


8,581 


1,539 


313 


Good Hope 


7,570 


1,575 


353 


Bushnell 


23,040 


5,541 


856 


Colchester 


9,799 


2,898 


553 


Industry 


19,230 


4,543 


631 


Sullivan 


21,411 


4,443 


731 


Atwood 


8,863 


2,188 


336 


Monticello 


18.142 


3,338 


539 


Barry 


14,756 


2,614 


455 


Athens 


11,508 


2,773 


531 


Auburn 


5,691 


676 


185 


Findlay 


11,021 


1.703 


341 


Stewardson 


17,676 


4.123 


712 


Windsor 


14,695 


3,033 


572 


Bethany 


11,375 


2,536 


438 



* Meaning number located more than 1% miles from the school district center. 

satisfactory formula for estimating transportation cost under assumed 
conditions of reorganized attendance districts. Several methods were 
developed and are described in Appendix II. 

The method selected for use was a regression formula obtained by- 
correlating the criterion costs developed for the 31 consolidated districts 
with the respective dwelling-to-school distances computed by the pro- 
cedure as described earlier for the hypothetical districts. The formula may 
be stated as follows: The total transportation cost of a given consolidated 



TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS 



101 






school district comprising rural territory may be estimated by adding 
items 1 and 2, expressed in dollars: 

1. The number 3.0160 multiplied by the sum of dwelling-to-school 
miles of family dwellings located more than a mile and a half from the 
school district center. 5 

2. The amount of $5436 for each district. 

This formula may be expressed mathematically as follows: Xj = 
3.0160X 2 4- $5436, where X x is the estimated cost in dollars and X 2 is the 
sum of dwelling-to-school miles. 

It should be pointed out that this formula was developed with a cri- 
terion that included transportation of both elementary and high school 
pupils within areas comparable to the hypothetical high school attend- 
ance districts. Therefore, in estimating the potential cost of transporta- 
tion in Illinois, it was necessary to apply the formula only to hypothetical 
high school districts. The supporting data used in developing and testing 
this formula in the sample of 31 districts are shown in Table XIII. 

The total estimated cost for the entire state, shown in Table XIV, was 
approximately $17.5 million. 



TABLE XIV 

Estimated Cost of Transporting Pupils 

in Illinois to 

Potential School Centers of Efficient Size 





(l) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


County 


Land Area 


Number of 


Sum of 




Potential 


of Potential 


Family Dwellings 


Dwelling-to- 


Estimated 


District 


District 


Outside District 


Scliool Distances 


Cost of 


Center 


(Sq. Mi.) 


Center 


(One Way) 


Transportation 


Adams 










Quincy 


411 


2.918 


34,384 


$109,139 


Camp Point 


449 


2,900 


32,953 


104,823 


Alexander 










Cairo 


220 


2,498 


52,569 


163,985 


Bond 










Greenville 


382 


2,891 


30,110 


96.248 


Boone 










Belvidere 


280 


1,842 


19,406 


63,965 


Brown 










Mt. Sterling 


307 


1,838 


16,955 


56,573 


Bureau 










Spring Valley 


144 


2,124 


19,147 


63,184 


Princeton 


364 


2,281 


23,772 


77,133 


Sheffield 


355 


2,657 


30,127 


96,300 



6 It was found that the best estimate was obtained when not more than 300 
dwellings were counted in any single congested area outside the school district 
center. 



102 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 
TABLE XIV (Continued) 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


County 


Land Area 


Number of 


Sum of 




Potential 


of Potential 


Family Dwellings 


Dwelling-to- 


Estimated 


District 


District 


Outside District 


School Distances 


Cost of 


Center 


(Sq. Mi.) 


Center 


(One Way) 


Transportation 


Calhoun 










Hardin 


259 


1,819 


24,993 


80,816 


Carroll 










Savanna 


465 


3,015 


41,301 


130,000 


Cass 










Beardstown 


369 


2,330 


37,765 


119,336 


Champaign 










Tolono 


308 


2,154 


24,475 


79,253 


Champaign-Urbana 


340 


3,044 


30,683 


97,977 


Rantoul 


345 


2,045 


21,561 


70,465 


Christian 










Taylorville 


582 


4,373 


51,949 


162,115 


Pana 


124 


1,190 


9,928 


35,380 


Clark 










Marshall 


502 


3,992 


58,726 


182,554 


Clay 










Flora 


462 


3,707 


45,222 


141,826 


Clinton 










Breese 


340 


4,009 


39,529 


124,656 


Centralia 


157 


931 


8,903 


32,288 


Cook* 








1,057,212 


Coles 










Charleston 


291 


2,048 


16,812 


56,142 


Mattoon 


209 


1,390 


10,932 


38,407 


Crawford 










Robinson 


441 


3,949 


42,227 


132,794 


Cumberland 










Toledo 


347 


2,661 


27,044 


87,001 


De Kalb 










De Kalb 


423 


2,985 


44,375 


139,272 


Sandwich 


202 


1,655 


19,447 


64,089 


De Witt 










Clinton 


497 


2,708 


28,260 


90,669 


Douglas 










Tuscola 


419 


3,405 


41,219 


129,753 


Du Page 










Glen Ellyn-Wheaton 


82 


1,200 


8,305 


30.485 


Naperville 


75 


561 


2.989 


14,451 


Downers Grove 


50 


1,177 


6,403 


24,748 


Elmhurst 


25 


889 


3,667 


16,496 


Villa Park-Lombard 


40 


783 


4,714 


19,653 


Edgar 










Paris 


336 


2,569 


28,027 


89.967 


Chrisman 


289 


1,506 


15,157 


51,150 


Edwards 










Albion 


225 


1,811 


16,453 


55,059 


Effingham 










Effingham 


481 


3,579 


44,436 


139,456 



* Due to the large number of suburban areas in this county, transportation cost was esti- 
mated by a method developed in another study by W. P. McLure, op. cit. 



TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS 
TABLE XIV (Continued) 



103 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


County 


Land Area 


Number of 


Sum of 




Potential 


of Potential 


Family Dwellings 


Dwelling-to- 


Estimated 


District 


District 


Outside District 


School Distances 


Cost of 


Center 


(Sq. Mi.) 


Center 


(One Way) 


Transportation 


Fayette 










Vandalia 


716 


5,047 


75,096 


231,927 


Ford 










Gibson City 


485 


2,401 


42,615 


133,964 


Franklin 










Benton 


190 


1,854 


15,829 


53,177 


Christopher 


103 


1,872 


11.233 


39.316 


Zeigler 


37 


788 


3,164 


14.979 


West Frankfort 


95 


1,586 


9,821 


35.057 


Fulton 










Canton 


421 


2,623 


49.125 


153 598 


Lewistown 


449 


2,553 


30.200 


96.520 


Gallatin 










Shawneetown 


328 


1,439 


32.218 


120.606 


Greene 










Carrollton 


539 


2,102 


45,240 


141.881 


Grundy 










Morris 


430 


1,532 


31,601 


100.745 


Hamilton 










McLeansboro 


434 


1,466 


33,946 


107.818 


Hancock 










Carthage 


796 


5,478 


82,518 


254,311 


Hardin 










Rosiclare 


183 


1,478 


16.319 


54.655 


Henderson 










Stronghurst 


381 


1,986 


24,847 


80.375 


Henry 










Quincy 


341 


1,805 


37,030 


117,120 


Geneseo 


482 


3,132 


39,171 


123,577 


Iroquois 










Watseka 


630 


3.433 


43.220 


135,788 


Gilman 


490 


1.724 


38.135 


120,452 


Jackson 










Carbondale 


169 


2.220 


19.877 


65,386 


Murphysboro 


428 


2.665 


42.468 


133,520 


Jasper 










Newton 


494 


2.895 


35.718 


113,162 


Jefferson 










Mt. Vernon 


571 


4.403 


51.639 


161,179 


Jersey 










Jerseyville 


370 


1,982 


21.461 


70.101 


Jo Daviess 










Galena 


611 


1.604 


56,838 


176,860 


Johnson 










Vienna 


345 


2,562 


28,456 


91.260 


Kane 










Elgin 


195 


1.920 


25,203 


81,449 


Geneva 


171 


1,764 


19.112 


63.079 


Aurora 


126 


2.498 


13,828 


47.142 



104 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

TABLE XIV (Continued) 





(l) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


County 


Land Area 


Number of 


Sum of 




Potential 


of Potential 


Family Dwellings 


Dwelling-to- 


Estimated 


District 


District 


Outside District 


School Distances 


Cost of 


Center 


(Sq. Mi.) 


Center 


(One Way) 


Transportation 


Kankakee 










Kankakee 


674 


4,176 


53,113 


165,625 


Kendall 










Yorkville 


320 


1,452 


22,628 


73,683 


Knox 










Abingdon 


240 


1,375 


19,018 


62.795 


Galesburg 


478 


2,376 


49,639 


155,147 


Lake 










Zion 


54 


940 


4.419 


18,764 


Waukegan 


27 


551 


1.678 


10.498 


North Chicago 


18 


360 


1,211 


9,090 


Lake Forest 


25 


585 


952 


8,308 


Highland Park 


40 


1.265 


4,359 


18,584 


Libertyville 


110 


1,785 


10,394 


36,785 


Fox Lake 


53 


3,959 


26,665 


85,859 


Barrington 


62 


1,455 


9,559 


34,267 


La Salle 










Ottawa 


513 


3,891 


66,212 


205,132 


La Salle 


232 


1,673 


21,550 


70,431 


Peru 


103 


605 


25,160 


81.319 


Streator 


287 


2,470 


24,978 


80,770 


Lawrence 










Lawrenceville 


373 


2,078 


31,196 


99,524 


Lee 










Dixon 


437 


2,085 


19,989 


65,723 


Amboy 


289 


2,424 


33,593 


106,753 


Livingston 










Pontiac 


759 


3,684 


89,152 


274.320 


Fairbury 


280 


1,885 


18,875 


62,364 


Logan 










Lincoln 


618 


2,463 


53,823 


167,766 


Macon 










Decatur 


567 


5,041 


49,899 


155,932 


Macoupin 










Gillespie 


315 


2,006 


35.325 


111.977 


Virden 


185 


1,552 


13.913 


47,398 


Carlinville 


363 


1,761 


18,730 


61,927 


Madison 










Highland 


237 


1,660 


14,939 


50,492 


Edwardsville 


221 


2,746 


29,989 


95,883 


Collinsville 


68 


1,213 


7.416 


27,803 


Alton 


62 


1,326 


6,522 


25,107 


Wood River 


73 


2,183 


13.449 


45,999 


Granite City 


45 


700 


14,851 


50,227 


Marion 










Salem 


500 


4,332 


49,181 


153,767 


Centralia 


78 


2,230 


8,447 


30,913 


Marshall 










Lacon 


395 


2,009 


33,676 


107,003 



TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS 
TABLE XIV (Continued) 



105 





(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


County 


Land Area 


Number of 


Sum of 




Potential 


of Potential 


Family Dwellings 


Dwelling-to- 


Estimated 


District 


District 


Outside District 


School Distances 


Cost of 


Center 


(Sq. Mi.) 


Center 


(One Way) 


Transportation 


Mason 










Havana 


539 


2,013 


53,738 


167.510 


Massac 










Metropolis 


245 


2,061 


21,287 


69,638 


McDonough 










Macomb 


579 


2,315 


50,883 


158.900 


McIIenry 










Woodstock 


308 


2,698 


48,049 


150.353 


Harvard 


153 


1,209 


■ 9,157 


33,054 


Crystal Lake 


144 


2,333 


17,712 


58,856 


McLean 










Bloomington 


588 


3.055 


87,439 


269,152 


Normal 


576 


2,639 


74,092. 


228,898 


Menard 










Petersburg' 


311 


1,975 


19,744 


64,984 


Mercer 










Aledo 


555 


2,639 


44,556 


139,818 


Monroe 










Waterloo 


379 


2,246 


24,171 


78,337 


Montgomery 










Litchfield 


237 


1,403 


16,557 


55.372 


Hillsboro 


465 


2,302 


47,360 


148,274 


Morgan 










Jacksonville 


561 


3,232 


39,546 


124,708 


Moultrie 










Sullivan 


344 


1,509 


28,173 


90,406 


Ogle 










Kochelle 


362 


2,089 


27,041 


86,992 


Mount Morris 


392 


2,436 


48,461 


151,596 


Peoria 










Peoria City 


50 


2,345 


8,498 


31.066 


Peoria 


126 


2,981 


16,944 


56,540 


Elmwood 


232 


1,421 


14,790 


50,044 


Peoria Heights 


201 


3,656 


32,952 


104,820 


Perry 










Du Quoin 


438 


2,972 


52,708 


164,405 


Piatt 










Monticello 


435 


2,780 


37,958 


119,919 


Pike 










Pittsfield 


828 


4,830 


78,702 


242,802 


Pope 










Golconda 


381 


1,856 


22,731 


73,993 


Pulaski 










Mounds 


203 


2,087 


38,860 


122,638 


Putnam 










Mark-Gran ville 


166 


1,094 


9,133 


32,982 


Randolph 










Sparta 


270 


2,009 


37,724 


119,213 


Chester 


321 


2,180 


32,378 


103,089 



106 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 
TABLE XIV (Continued) 





(l) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


County 


Land Area 


Number of 


Sum of 




Potential 


of Potential 


Family Dwellings 


Dwelling-to- 


Estimated 


District 


District 


Outside District 


School Distances 


Cost of 


Center 


(Sq. Mi.) 


Center 


(One Way) 


Transportation 


Richland 










Olney 


360 


2,611 


26,139 


84,271 


Rock Island 










South Island 


243 


1,867 


24,569 


79,537 


East Moline 


120 


2,802 


21,184 


69.328 


Moline 


40 


791 


3,474 


15,915 


St. Clair 










Belleville 


271 


5,311 


52,352 


163,331 


East St. Louis 


105 


5,002 


25,386 


82.001 


Mascoutah 


274 


3,099 


35,963 


113.901 


Saline 










Eldorado 


156 


1,931 


15,722 


52,854 


Harrisburg 


225 


2,876 


24,762 


80,119 


Sangamon 










Springfield 


664 


9,187 


82,305 


253,669 


Auburn 


206 


2,531 


21,121 


69,138 


Schuyler 










Rushville 


433 


2,266 


28,330 


90,880 


Scott 










Winchester 


251 


1,729 


15,154 


51,141 


Shelby 










Shelbyville 


771 


5,362 


80,060 


246,897 


Stark 










Wyoming 


291 


1,576 


16,249 


54,444 


Stephenson 










Freeport 


563 


4,241 


52,864 


164,874 


Tazewell 










East Peoria 


121 


3,720 


29,889 


95,581 


Pekin 


126 


1,194 


15,280 


51,522 


South Pekin 


392 


2,598 


39,020 • 


123,120 


Union 










Anna-Jonesboro 


412 


3,133 


31,561 


100,625 


Vermilion 










Georgetown 


258 


3,315 


27,342 


87,900 


Danville 


290 


3,358 


27,204 


87,484 


Hoopeston 


336 


1,971 


21,879 


71,423 


Wabash 










Mt. Carmel 


219 


1,520 


14,032 


47,757 


Warren 










Monmouth 


540 


3,244 


42,645 


134,081 


Washington 










Nashville 


565 


3,558 


52,674 


164,302 


Wayne 










Fairfield 


714 


4,815 


68,861 


213,122 


White 










Carmi 


500 


3,047 


48,468 


151,616 


Whiteside 










Morrison 


428 


3,879 


50,051 


156,390 


Sterling 


258 


1,905 


16,375 


54,824 



TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS 



107 



TABLE XIV (Continued) 



County 

Po*ential 
District t 
Center - 


(i) 

Land Area 

of Potential 

District 

(Sq. Mi.) 


(2) 

Number of 

Family Dwellings 

Outside District 

Center 


(3) 

Sum of 

Dwelling-to- 

School Distances 

(One Way) 


(4) 

Estimated 

Cost of 

Transportation 


Will 










Joliet 


576 


6,219 


59,220 


184,044 


Crete 


261 


1,955 


24,698 


79,925 


Williamson 










Johnston City 


94 


1,005 


7,708 


28.685 


Herrin 


44 


1,301 


7,050 


26.699 


Carterville 


97 


913 


4,802 


19.920 


Marion 


200 


2,129 


21,501 


70,283 


Winnebago 










Rockford 


331 


4,576 


36,856 


116,594 


South Beloit 


176 


1,683 


16,751 


55,957 


Woodford 










Roanoke H.S. 


537 


2,819 


46,846 


146,725 


Total 


54,545 


415,946 




$17,541,060 



The reader should note that this was the estimated cost, at 1948 prices, 
of transporting pupils in Illinois to potential school centers of efficient 
size. The school centers shown in Table XIV were designated as potential 
centers, 6 selected purely by an objective procedure for purposes of esti- 
mation only. 

See Chapter V. 



CHAPTER IX 

SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER 
ATTENDANCE UNITS 

Real responsibility for school housing has been left to local commu- 
nities in our country. Prior to recent years some financial assistance 
from state and federal funds has been available under various circum- 
stances. Generally non-local funds were made available for such pur- 
poses as the provision of public works to stimulate economic activity 
(as in the 1930's) or the promotion of school district reorganization (as 
in the case of special building aid to central rural schools in the state of 
New York). 

Until the current period, states have rarely, if ever, been concerned 
with sharing in the provision of completely modern and adequate school 
housing facilities for all the children of the state. More generally state 
funds have been made available in token amounts for the purpose of 
stimulating, in some communities, local building activity which might be 
copied by other local communities. 

Some states have adopted legislation recently granting large sums of 
money to aid localities in the costs of school housing. This is important 
since the provision of adequate and modern schoolhouse facilities for all 
children of the state has assumed proportions beyond the limits of local 
communities, due to the combined effects of a 10-year backlog of school- 
house construction, unprecedented high enrollment from an increase in 
birth rate, and the high current cost of construction. 

States must begin a systematic consideration of school housing prob- 
lems. The total need must be examined if the state is to determine how 
much is to be done at the state level to supplement present local resources 
in the provision of modern school housing in attendance centers of ade- 
quate size. 

Citizens of local communities have no right to ask all citizens of the 
state to share in the cost of providing school housing for small, ineffi- 
cient attendance units, thus freezing such inefficiency for the life of the 
building. 

But all children of the state do have the right to adequate and modern 
school housing, and the state has the primary obligation to make this 
possible — through legislation concerning district organization, taxing 
powers, and revising bonding and tax limitations, and through appropria- 
tions sufficient to fulfill the partnership obligation of the state. 

The question raised for consideration in this chapter is: What is the 
present need for school housing in Illinois if all children of school age 

[108] 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 109 

were to attend 'public schools in attendance centers of 700 or more high 
school pupils and 300 or more elementary school pupils? 

Such a question contains three factors for consideration: the estima- 
tion of enrollment if all children of school age attend public schools; the 
organization of hypothetical attendance centers in line with the limits 
proposed; and maximum utilization of present facilities. 

Current Studies of School Housing Needs 

Three current studies of school housing needs are to be noted in 
connection with this study: the estimate of school building needs for the 
state of Florida, which is a result of a two-year study by the Florida 
State Department of Education; the estimate of school plant needs of 
North Carolina, developed as part of the report of the State Education 
Commission; and the survey of school building needs made currently by 
the Illinois Association of School Boards. 

The Florida Study. The Florida study was an outcome of the compre- 
hensive education survey in the state by the Florida Citizens Committee. 
The Committee made a thorough analysis of the financing of school capi- 
tal outlays and developed the conception of incorporating capital outlay 
as part of the foundation programs of the various counties. This idea 
was approved by the legislature when it adopted as part of the minimum 
foundation program for each county the sum of $400 per year per class- 
room or instruction unit for capital outlay. With this aid for school 
buildings available, some criteria or measure of school building needs for 
all counties in the state was necessary. 

In general, the study was based on the following: 1 

1. Every school building in the state was visited by members of the 
survey teams. 

2. Pupil population spot maps were provided for each county. 

3. School plants including sites were evaluated in terms of nationally 
accepted standards for their adequacy. 

4. New school centers were proposed in order to provide for school 
centers of reasonable size. 

5. Systems of bus transportation were carefully studied, and proposed 
new school centers were checked it) terms of feasibility and practicability 
of transportation. 

G. Recommendations were made for each center in terms of the num- 
ber of classrooms needed, the number of special rooms, additional sites, 
etc. These units were converted into square footage for each center. 

'Information obtained from a letter by R. L. Johns, Director, Division of Ad- 
ministration and Field Service, University of Florida, and Research and Field Studies 
Specialist, Florida State Department of Education, dated May 27, 1949. 



110 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

7. Cost estimates were made in terms of actual contract costs of 
school buildings in terms of square footage. 

The study represents an attempt to detail the school plant needs of 
local administrative units in the entire state. By thus making available 
to each local unit a comprehensive study of its school plant needs, the 
general and school population trends, and an analysis of the financial 
situation, the local units can develop a long-range program for school 
plant development with assurance that their building programs will ful- 
fill standards concerned with adequacy of program, size of unit, and 
transportation facilities, and that the program as part of a foundation 
program will receive state aid. 

The study reveals that existing school building needs for all of 
Florida's 67 counties approximate $140 million. 

While this type of a study is desirable for a state such as Florida, 
where local organization of school districts presents no serious problem 
and where the people have already accepted the principle of state aid for 
buildings, the picture in Illinois is completely different. Undoubtedly 
in the future a survey of a type similar to that in Florida, with specific 
recommendations for the development of a long-range school plant pro- 
gram, will be advisable and desirable in Illinois ; but at the present time 
the findings that are incorporated within this chapter serve the more 
general purpose of highlighting the school building and' site needs of the 
state on the basis of optimum organization of school attendance units. 

The North Carolina Education Commission Estimate. The Committee 
on School Plants of the State Education Commission estimated that ap- 
proximately $150 million would be required to provide additional school 
facilities urgently needed and to modernize school plants. 2 

In arriving at this estimate, members of the committee visited schools 
in nine "representative" counties at which time they talked to school 
officials and laymen to get suggestions as to plant needs. The manner in 
which the nine counties were selected is not reported. A questionnaire 
was sent to all 172 superintendents of schools in the state. One assumes 
that a 100 per cent response was attained. 

The judgments of local school officials were accepted in terms of 
whether the present rooms were "satisfactory; if major alterations were 
needed; or if present facilities should be abandoned." One has no assur- 
ance tha* such judgments were made on any uniform basis. Descriptive 
illustrations are included in the building report indicating need for addi- 
tional special facilities, for more adequate maintenance, and for improv- 
ment of sanitary facilities. No objective counting of such need is in 
evidence. 



2 Plemmons, W. H., Secretary of the Commission, Report of the State Educa- 
tion Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina: The Commission, 1948, pp. 448-481. 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 111 

On the basis of information available in the report it would seem that 
the estimate of the committee is the pooling of personal judgment based 
on observation, rather than the summarization of facts obtained through 
careful investigation. 

The Illinois Association of School Boards Survey. The Association 
has submitted a one-page questionnaire to member schools and about 
30 additional schools. The questionnaire went out to 900 schools, and it 
had been previously estimated that these schools cover 80 to 85 per cent 
of the pupil population of the state outside of Chicago. Any final report 
will have to be based upon a percentage return of questionnaires sub- 
mitted to schools representing a substantial part of the state, but in no 
sense constituting a true sample of the state. Such a report could not 
be considered quantitatively proportional to the total school housing 
needs of the state. It may be predicted that the findings will indicate a 
tremendous backlog of school housing needs in the schools from which 
responses come. The reports also will indicate considerable unexpended 
funds on hand and will indicate that a number of communities have not 
begun to exhaust local financial resources if these are indicated by the 
legal limits. 

The questionnaire used in the Association survey calls for a report 
of present enrollment and the estimated enrollment for 1952-1953. Re- 
spondents are asked to indicate the number of additional rooms needed 
beyond present capacity, but such estimates and judgment as to present 
capacity will vary with individual respondents, since no objective stand- 
ards are established. Other items included are the age of the building, 
individual judgment about buildings to be abandoned or modernized, the 
number of buildings or additions under construction and the estimated 
cost of such construction, an estimate of cost to provide adequate modern 
facilities in the local school district, the amount of bond funds, and the 
availability of tax funds for building purposes. 

The study will gather individual judgments and figures representing 
need which can be used in stimulating local activity and in seeking relief 
from the state. It will not provide any sound basis for indicating total 
need for the state, nor for showing the effect of reorganization upon this 
need. 

It seems apparent in reviewing the above studies that several principal 
factors are present which tend to operate against securing a reliable meas- 
ure of total school housing need. 

First of all, little or no control is exercised in the selection of "repre- 
sentative" areas which are surveyed or studied as a true sample of the 
whole state or country. This, of necessity, means that the final findings 
for these areas can be strictly construed only as a measure of need 
for these same areas, and any attempt to estimate from them the need 



112 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

for the state or country cannot be defended as statistically reliable. 

A second major objection to the manner in which the findings have 
been determined and reported is the fact that criteria on which the meas- 
ures of need are reported are for the most part subjective. The usual 
practice in compiling data for an estimate of building need seems to be 
to secure estimates based on the judgments of a large number of indi- 
viduals who have in some manner participated in the study, rather than 
to develop estimates based on pre-determined standards. However, the 
inclusion of a large number of people in a survey works to stimulate local 
building activity and possible favorable legislative action. 

A third problem present in interpreting the findings of the previous 
studies is the fact that the findings are summations of variables rather 
than the summations of common elements such as pupil-units in the de- 
velopment of a measure of need for the various facilities present in a 
school plant. In addition, many of the findings are reported in categories 
which are not mutually exclusive. 

Organization of This Study 

As already indicated, this is an exploratory study in an effort to es- 
tablish a procedure for estimating the total school housing need of the 
state on a dependable quantitative basis. 

It is taken for granted that the need for school housing is tremendous 
and that the state and local communities should take action to meet this 
need. The study is not undertaken to give further evidence of those facts 
but rather to indicate the size of the problem so that action may be de- 
signed to meet it completely. 

Inasmuch as approximately 40 per cent of the pupil population of the 
state resides in Cook County (and most of that in Chicago) , Cook County 
was set apart from the other counties of the state. The basic study was 
designed for and carried on with respect to the other 101 counties of 
the state. Nevertheless, it is not to be assumed that Chicago and Cook 
County are not an integral part of Illinois and that the school children 
in Cook County are not to be considered on an equitable basis along with 
those in the other 101 counties. For that reason, available figures were 
secured from the Chicago City Schools and are reported separately with 
appropriate conversion to the same dimension of need utilized for the 
101 counties. 

With cost figures fluctuating by the month, it was determined to 
indicate need in terms of the numbers of pupils needing accommodations. 
In terms of meager available current cost figures, the procedure by which 
a statement of need in pupil units may be converted to cost figures is 
demonstrated toward the end of the chapter. 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 113 

School Housing Need in 101 Illinois Counties 

This systematic estimation of school housing needs in Illinois is based 
on the assumption that a modern educational program be provided by 
school districts of adequate size to make such a program possible. Stand- 
ards for minimum size of hypothetical attendance centers and standards 
for determining adequacy of site and building facilities were established 
on the basis of this assumption. 

The reader must bear in mind that this study is made for the purpose 
of estimating school housing needs, and is not a study proposing either 
reorganization of school districts or plans and specifications for school 
construction. 

The determination of school housing need for all Illinois counties other 
than Cook was based upon the application of the established standards 
to a selected sample of 21 counties and the application of the findings from 
these counties to an estimate for the 101 counties. 

Hypothetical attendance centers were used 3 for this chapter since 
it was desired to see what the school housing needs in the state would be 
— not as districts are now organized, but under conditions which would 
avoid small, inefficient attendance units. The basic assumption of this 
study is the establishment of large school units which will provide en- 
riched programs of education. 

Setting Standards and Procedures for Field Work 

The plan of the survey contemplated measuring school plant needs in 
terms of pupils served and pupils without adequate accommodation. 
Total current need in any category was defined as the difference between 
the number of pupils for whom adequate provision was currently avail- 
able at the hypothetical attendance centers at the time of the field survey 
in 1948, and the total estimated enrollment for such centers. 

A basis for stating present adequacy in terms of the number of pupils 
for whom acceptable facilities are available had to be developed. In 
some of the other studies of school housing, need was stated in terms of 
the number or percentage of pupils estimated to be housed in old build- 
ings, in overcrowded buildings, in temporary, rented or obsolete buildings, 
or on half-day schedules. Determination of what was overcrowded, tem- 
porary, or obsolete was largely a matter of personal judgments, without 
a uniform basis. The age of a building has some correlation with its 
adequacy, but the amount of alteration and improvement and the qual- 
ity of maintenance vary so much that the age of the building, in itself, 
cannot be considered a reliable standard. 



1 See Chapter VII. 



114 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

In order that the total acceptable facilities counted in this study 
would be a total of similar items, rather than of a variety of kinds of 
judgments in categories which might not be mutually exclusive, it was 
necessary to accept some arbitrary standards and to establish uniform 
procedure for field work. The standards accepted for this study were 
stated largely on the basis of recommendations of the National Council 
on School House Construction, the experience of one college staff member 
in developing up-to-date building score cards, and conferences with spe- 
cialists in the field of school buildings. 

The decisions were made in favor of standards acceptable for a mod- 
ern educational program as opposed to those recommended for a tradi- 
tional school program. 

The standards developed and the procedures to be used were tried 
out in Boone County. Appropriate revisions were made following this 
experience. All individuals to help later in the field work were taken to 
Coles County, where field work was accomplished in training to establish 
uniform procedure for the remaining work. 

Standards used were stated in as few categories of space as possible 
to avoid error and to expedite field work. The following standards 
were established: 

Site: 

For elementary schools: Five acres plus one acre for each 100 pupils. No credit 
was given for less than two acres. Credit for 75 pupils was given for two acres and 
credit was increased alternatively by 35 and 40 pupils to eight acres for 300 pupils, 
the minimum desirable size. 

For secondary schools: Ten acres plus one acre for each 100 pupils. No credit 
was given for less than three acres. Credit for 120 pupils was given for three acres 
and increased by 40 pupils for each additional acre to 15 acres and by 50 pupils for 
each additional acre to 17 acres for 700 pupils. Since most Illinois school sites were 
totally inadequate by these standards, the field worker had to determine whether 
present sites could be expanded by contiguous undeveloped property or by property 
with small housing on it. If such expansion were not possible, a new site for the 
entire computed enrollment was reported on the assumption that first units of a 
completely new building should be started on such a site rather than as additions 
to a building on a site already completely inadequate and incapable of expansion. 

Classrooms: 

From 30 to 40 square feet per elementary school pupil, 25 square feet per high 
school pupil in regular classrooms, and a variety of different areas for high school 
pupils in special classrooms are recommended for modern educational programs. 
Recommendations for special classrooms run as high as 75 square feet per pupil in 
school shops. To avoid setting up separate categories for each kind of classrooms, a 
uniform standard of 30 square feet per pupil (or 900 square feet, or over, per class- 
room) was accepted. However, a review of earlier reports on Illinois classrooms 
showed a modal distribution of classrooms at slightly more than 700 square feet. It 
was recognized that it would not be feasible to abandon all of the existing classrooms 
in Illinois for the sake of a new standard nor to employ additional teachers required 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 115 

to reduce the present classroom assignment of pupils to 20 rather than 30 or more. 
Upon these considerations, the following standards were set up : 

i More than 700 square feet 30 pupils 

500 to 700 square feet 20 pupils 

Less than 500 square feet no credit 

If two rooms of less than 500 square feet could be combined to give 900 or more 
square feet, credit for 30 pupils was computed for each such pair of rooms. 

Space Other than Classrooms, and Gymnasiums: 

Since the standards for space other than classrooms include a wide Variety of 
standards for libraries, auditoriums, cafeterias, health service rooms, administrative 
offices, storage, and the like, and since standards for such space are stated under a 
variety of alternatives for each kind of space, it was determined to use only an 
overall figure for space other than classrooms. It was assumed that 50 per cent of 
building space should be for other than classroom use. If 30 square feet per pupil is 
desirable for classroom use, then an additional 30 square feet per pupil is necessary 
for other than classroom use. The number of pupils for whom such space was avail- 
able was to be determined by computing the total floor area of the building, sub- 
tracting from the total floor area of classrooms, and dividing the difference by 30. 
Attention is called to the fact that this is a very rough measure and does not take 
into account the manner in which such space is organized for use. 

As one type of check on such organization, and also because of the 200-minute 
per week physical education law in Illinois, gymnasiums were given special attention 
according to the following standards: 

For elementary schools: Credit for 500 pupils was given for 3500 square feet of 
gymnasium space. No credit was given for less than 2000 square feet. Above 2000 
square feet proportional credit was computed by .14 X number of square feet up to 
750 pupils. Above 750 pupils, a second gymnasium was required with credit for each 
gymnasium computed separately. 

For secondary schools: Credit for 500 pupils was given for 6300 square feet of 
gymnasium space. No credit was given for less than 3000 square feet. Above 3000 
square feet, proportional credit was computed by .08 X square feet up to 800 pupils. 
For over 800 pupils, a second gymnasium was required with credit for each gym- 
nasium computed separately. 

Selection of Sample Counties 

In other studies of school housing needs, investigators have con- 
sidered as a reflection of total need a response from a restricted group 
of districts or whatever return was received from mailing questionnaires 
to a general mailing list. In this study it was decided to secure infor- 
mation by field study of a systematic sample of counties. 

After considering several possible factors to be used in stratifying 
counties, it was decided that reorganization would likely affect school 
housing needs more in rural than in urban counties because of the many 
small schools in the rural counties. It was also decided that housing 
needs would be most directly related to some statistic representing the 
number of pupils in school. The following procedure, therefore, was fol- 
lowed in setting up a sample of 21 of the 101 counties of the state, ex- 
cluding Cook County. 



116 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

1. The counties were stratified on the basis of the percentage of 
population in urban centers and a multiplier of 21/101 was used to de- 
termine the number of counties to be drawn for the sample from each 
stratum : 











No. of Sample 


Stratum 


Per cent Urban 


No. of Counties 


Multiplier 

21/101 


Counties 


I 


0-10 


21 


4 


II 


11-20 


13 


21/101 


3 


III 


21-40 


25 


21/101 


5 


IV 


41-60 


28 


21/101 


6 


V 


60 and over 


14 


21/101 


3 



101 



21 



2. Counties in each stratum were arranged in order of decreasing 
average daily attendance as reported in the 1945-1946 Annual Statistical 
Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The card for each 
county contained its ADA and the cumulative total ADA for the 
stratum. The total ADA for each stratum was divided by the number 
of counties to be drawn for the sample. By using the cumulative total, 
the counties were drawn in which this quotient or its multiple were found. 

3. Preliminary school building need studies had been conducted in 
15 counties in the state in the spring and summer of 1948. Two such 
counties were drawn in the original sample above. For these counties, 
there was useful information on scores of school buildings and other data. 
It was decided, therefore, to substitute where feasible from the counties 
in this group not included in the sample as chosen above. Substitution 
of counties already surveyed for those originally selected was accom- 
plished by setting up cells within each stratum — each cell being bounded 
by points half way between the location points on the cumulative total 
ADA as described above. Substitutions of eight counties previously sur- 
veyed were made. In each case the substitute county nearest the original 
sample county according to cumulative total ADA for the stratum was 
used and in no case was a county substituted unless it was in the same 
cell as the original sample county. 

The resulting sample utilized for the study consisted of the following 
counties : 

Stratum I — Pulaski, Kendall,* Schuyler* Brown* 

Stratum II — Crawford. Piatt* Hamilton 

Stratum III — Bureau, Ogle* Clay* Grundy* Menard 

Stratum IV — Vermilion* Franklin, Whiteside, Jefferson, Morgan, Boone 

Stratum V — Peoria,* Lake* Coles 



Counties from which data were secured in preliminary survey. 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 117 

Computation of Estimated Enrollments 

It is to be recalled that school building needs in the state were to be 
viewed in terms of a hypothetical or modal plan of organization. 

Enrollment estimates assume that all children of public school age 
will be attending public school, and make allowance for the effect of the 
increased birth rate. No deductions were made for pupils of school age 
not attending nor for those attending parochial and other private schools. 

Estimated enrollment for elementary attendance centers was com- 
puted by taking the total 1940 census for urban areas served by the at- 
tendance center times .133 plus the highway map dwelling count for the 
remainder of the attendance area times .6. Estimated enrollment for high 
school attendance centers was computed by taking the total 1940 census 
count for urban areas served by the center times .067 plus the highway 
map dwelling count for the remainder of the attendance area times .3. 
From the estimated enrollments thus obtained, the number of pupils for 
whom facilities were currently available was subtracted to obtain the 
number of pupils for whom site and building accommodations were still 
to be provided. 

Conducting the Field Work 

In this study, 325 school buildings in the 21 sample counties were 
considered. Field workers visited all school buildings at hypothetical 
attendance centers in these counties except frame buildings or one-room 
buildings. By checking with county superintendents, it was determined 
whether or not some unusually good building facilities were overlooked 
by the original assignment of hypothetical attendance centers. If they 
had been, the additional buildings reported also were visited and were 
considered as possible alternatives to those at the assigned hypothetical 
attendance centers. 

The field worker considered each school building and site in terms 
of its adequacy for the estimated enrollment. He determined the number 
of acres in the present site, the possibility of expansion sufficient to take 
care of the estimated enrollment, and the availability of nearby sites 
adequate in size for all of the estimated enrollment. He tallied the num- 
ber of classrooms according to size and determined the number of pairs 
of classrooms having less than 500 square feet of floor area which might 
be combined. He computed the total floor area of the building and sub- 
tracted the total floor area of classroom space to report the other-than- 
classroom floor area. He computed the floor area of the gymnasium or 
gymnasiums. All of these items were reported in terms of numbers of 
pupils provided for, according to tables or formulas furnished on the work 



118 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

sheets. By subtraction from the estimated enrollment, the field worker 
computed the number of pupils needing accommodations according to 
each classification. 

In centers where a high school building was currently in use but not 
assigned as a hypothetical high school attendance center, the building 
was considered as a potential elementary school building. 

All available buildings and sites in any given center listed as a hypo- 
thetical attendance center were considered collectively. No additional 
credit for excess facilities beyond those needed for the computed enroll- 
ment at such centers was reported. Such facilities would not be useful 
in reducing the need elsewhere. 

Some modification in procedure was necessary in order to use data 
from the 10 counties in which there had been preliminary field study 
on buildings. Supplementary information on buildings at the hypothet- 
ical attendance centers in these counties was obtained by correspondence, 
to make possible the translation of data from the preliminary survey 
reports to terms corresponding to the information collected by field 
•workers visiting the other counties of the sample. 

Translating the Findings Into a Statement of Need 

Data from report forms on individual schools visited were consoli- 
dated by hypothetical attendance centers, by counties, and by strata. 
This data concerning the number of pupils needing accommodations with 
respect to site, classrooms, other space, and gymnasiums, is a quantita- 
tive measure of need in the 21 sample counties surveyed. A ratio was 
established for purposes of estimating the need for the 101 counties of 
the state other than Cook from the surveyed need of the sample counties. 
In estimating needs for all counties on the basis of data from sample 
counties, a simple ratio estimate was used, stratum by stratum. 

TABLE XV 

Average Daily Attendance, All Counties and 
.- • . • • Sample Counties, by Strata 



ADA of AH Sample Counties 
in Each Stratum 



ADA of All Counties in 
Each Stratum 



Stratum Elementary Secondary 



Total 



Elementary Secondary 



Total 



Ratio 

Used 

for 

Estimate 



I 


5,558 


2,013 


7,571 


27,341 


10,722 


38,063 


5.0274 


: :II ' . • ■ 


6,629 


2,541 


9,170 


33,639 


12,410 


46,049 


5.0217 


Ill 


13,148 


5,511 


18,659 


65,017 


29,145 


94,162 


5.0464 


IV 


30,369 


11,340 


41,709 


126,488 


52,516 


179.004 


4.1912 


•v 


31,329 


13,008 


44,337 


152,764 


67,117 


219,881 


4.9615 



Total 



87,033 34,413 121,446 405,249 171,910 577,159 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 



119 



This blow-up ratio for each stratum was established on the basis 
of the average daily attendance of all counties in the stratum divided 
by the average daily attendance in the sample counties of the stratum. 
The average daily attendance of counties by stratum and the blow-up 
ratio established for each stratum are reported in Table XV. 

Several ratios were possible, such as total ADA of stratum to total 
ADA of sample counties in the stratum, total elementary ADA of stra- 
tum to elementary ADA of sample counties, or total secondary ADA of 
stratum to total secondary ADA of sample counties in the stratum. 

To determine which of these ratios should be used, coefficients of cor- 
relation were computed to determine the extent to which elementary, 
secondary, or total need correlated with the elementary, secondary, or 
total ADA of the sample counties surveyed. No significant difference 
was found, but for both elementary and secondary data the coefficients 
of correlation were higher as related to the total ADA of the sample 
counties. 

Therefore, the ratio of total ADA of all the counties in the stratum to 
the total ADA of sample counties of the stratum was accepted as the 
basis for computing estimated need in any stratum from the surveyed 
need in each of the categories considered. 

The formula thus established for the blow-up ratio was: 



L 

A „ 

s =L 
k=i 



rii 



Ni 

L Y U 



Where: 



A 

s 

Xij 
Yij 

Ui 

N t 
L 



Total estimated need over all strata. 

Need of the jth county in the ith stratum. 

Total average daily attendance in jth county 

in the ith stratum. 

Number of sample counties in ith stratum. 

Total number of counties in ith stratum. 

Total number of strata. 



Tables XVI to XIX inclusive report the surveyed need and the es- 
timated need expressed in pupil units with respect to site, classrooms, 
other-than-classroom space and gymnasiums. In each instance, the sur- 
veyed need was multiplied by the ratio for the stratum to compute the 
estimated need for each stratum. 



120 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 



TABLE XVI 

Estimated Number of Pupils Needing Site Accommodations 



Stratum 


Need as Expressed in Pupil Units 
in Sample Counties 


Ratio 

Used 

for 

Estimate 


Estimated Total Need in 
Pupil Units * 




Elementary 


Secondary 


Total 


Elemental 


•y Secondary 


Total 


I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 


5,641 

4,184 

12,615 

22,400 

28,644 


3,567 

1,660 

5,686 

11,254 

16,558 


9,208 

5,884 

18,301 

33,654 

45,202 


5.0274 
5.0217 
5.0464 
4.1912 
4.9615 


28,360 
21,011 
63,660 
93,883 
142,117 


17,933 
8,336 
28,694 
47,167 
82,152 


46,293 

29,347 

92,354 

141,050 

224,269 


Total 


73,484 


38,725 


112,249 




349,031 


184,282 


533,313 



* The total need in the state (excluding Cook County) in pupil units is determined by sum- 
ming up the individual needs of the strata shown. The total need of each stratum is determined by 
multiplying by a ratio the elementary and secondary site needs of the sample counties within each 
stratum. The ratio of each stratum is the ratio of the total ADA of the stratum to the sum of 
the ADA of the sample counties within the stratum. 

In terms of the total number of 739,432 pupils estimated for the 101 
counties, the Table XVI figure of 533,313, or over 70 per cent of the total, 
needing site accommodations is staggering. One must recall that when- 
ever present sites could not be expanded without taking developed prop- 
erty, a complete new site generally was counted as needed. Such proce- 
dure tends to expand site need as reported, but is justifiable as explained 
in the statement of procedures used. 

The standards for sites accepted for the study exceed current prac- 
tice in Illinois tremendously. Many sites surveyed were too small to be 
given any credit and very few were adequate in terms of the standard 
accepted even for present enrollment. Reduction of the standard for 
sites is not justifiable. 

In acquisition of new sites on undeveloped property, it is better 
to over-expand and to release the excess later than to have to expand 
later through condemnation procedures to take over property that has 
been improved by erection of dwellings or commercial or industrial 
buildings. Over-expansion of site can be reduced by sale much more 
readily than can over-expansion of the school building, for example. 
On the other hand, the school building cannot be properly expanded if 
adequate site is not available. 

If one uses the ADA figures reported in Table XV as an indication 
of the number of actual pupils, it would seem that provision for elemen- 
tary school sites is more adequate than that for high school sites. This 
arises from a combination of several factors, including: (1) the con- 
sideration of many small high school plants as potential elementary 
schools, (2) the fact that a smaller proportion of the youth of high school 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 



121 



TABLE XVII 

Estimated Number of Pupils Needing Classroom Accommodations 



Stratum 


Need as E 
in : 


xpressed in Pupil Units 
Sample Counties 


Ratio 
Used 
for 
Estimate 


Estimated Total Need in 
Pupil Units * 




Elementary 


Secondary 


Total 


Elementary 


Secondary 


Total 


I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 


3,011 
2,489 
6,669 
7,893 
13,298 


2,648 
2,628 
4,728 
8,392 
12,088 


5,659 

5,117 

11,397 

16,375 

25,386 


5.0274 
5.0217 
5.0464 
4.1912 
4.9615 


15,138 
12,499 
33,654 
33,081 
65,978 


13,313 
13,197 
23,859 
35,173 
59,975 


28,451 
25,696 
57,513 
68.254 
125,953 


Total 


33,360 


30,484 


63,934 




160,350 


145,517 


305,867 



* The total need in the state (excluding Cook County) in pupil units is determined by sum- 
ming up the individual needs of the strata shown. The total need of each stratum is determined 
by multiplying by a ratio the elementary and secondary classroom needs of the sample counties 
within each stratum. The ratio of each stratum is the ratio of the total ADA of the stratum to 
the sum of the ADA of the sample counties within the stratum. 

age than of elementary school age are currently in school and, hence 
accommodated, (3) the actual size of high school sites as contrasted with 
the standard which includes provision for a modern conception of intra- 
mural athletics and other outside activities. 

One may note also the fact that the "most" rural and "most" urban 
counties have proportionately greater need than the other counties. 

In the rural counties with much open country, it has not seemed so 
important to reserve land for use of school pupils through school owner- 
ship, and current schools in such counties include large numbers of small 



TABLE XVIII 

Estimated Number of Pupils Needing Other-Than-Classroom 
Space Accommodations 



Stratum 


Need as Expressed in Pup 
in Sample Counties 


il Units 


Ratio 
Used 
for 
Estimate 


Estimated Total Nee< 
Pupil Units * 


l in 




Elementary 


Secondary 


Total 


Elementary 


Secondary 


Total 


I 

II 

III 

IV 
V 


3,510 
1,803 
5,446 
3,512 
11,251 


2,708 
552 
2,710 
1,313 
7,379 


6,218 
2,355 
8,156 
4,825 
18,630 


5.0274 
5.0217 
5.0464 
4.1912 
4.9615 


17,646 
9,054 
27,483 
14,720 
55,822 


13,614 
2,772 

13,676 
5,503 

36.611 


31,260 
11,826 
41,159 
20223 
92,433 


Total 


25,522 


14,662 


40,184 




124,725 


72,176 


196,901 



* The total need in the state (excluding Cook County) in pupil units is determined by sum- 
ming up the individual needs of the strata shown. The total need of each stratum is determined 
by multiplying by a ratio the elementary and secondary other-than-classroom needs of the sample 
counties within each stratum. The ratio of each stratum is the ratio of the total ADA of the 
stratum to the sum of the ADA of the sample counties within the stratum. 



122 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

schools which attempt no modern program of activities requiring the 
utilization of so much site. 

At the other extreme, the cost of urban property, the availability of 
public parks, and employment opportunities and greater frequency of 
private and parochial schools reducing public high school enrollment 
help to explain the proportionately greater land shortage in the urban 
counties when present facilities are considered in terms of providing for 
all pupils of high school age. 

The estimate of 305,867 pupils needing classroom facilities reported 
in Table XVII represents over 40 per cent of the total estimated enroll- 
ment of 739,432 for the 101 counties. This estimate is one of the most 
dependable of the study. The standards for classrooms were clearly de- 
fined and classroom space was surveyed as such. Consideration was 
also given to the feasibility of combining classrooms through alteration 
so that altered rooms might meet the standards set. 

The estimate of 196,901 pupils needing other-than-classroom accom- 
modations as reported in Table XVIII is the most doubtful estimate of 
the study. The facilities credited as available were not specifically sur- 
veyed, but the estimate was obtained by subtracting classroom floor area 
from total floor area. Such procedure did not take into account the use- 
fulness nor organization of such space. The estimate of 345,505 pupils 
needing gymnasium accommodations as reported in Table XIX would 
indicate that for 148,604 pupils the 30 square feet of space credited as 
adequate provision for other-than-classroom space did not include, as it 
should have, the provision of gymnasium facilities. Without agreement 
on the kinds of facilities other than classrooms to be provided and on 

TABLE XIX 

Estimated Number of Pupils Needing Gymnasium Accommodations 



Stratum 


Need as Expressed in Pupil Units 
in Sample Counties 


Ratio 
Used 
for 
Estimate 


Estimated Total Need 
Pupil Units * 


in 




Elementary 


Secondary 


Total 


Elementary 


Secondary 


Total 


I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 


2,386 

3,221 

7,083 

14,655 

15,724 


2,287 

1,913 

3,704 

10,283 

11,944 


4,673 

5,134 

10,787 

24,938 

27,668 


5.0274 
5.0217 
5.0464 
4.1912 
4.9615 


11,995 
16,174 
35,744 
61,422 
78,015 


11,498 
9,607 
18,692 
43,098 
59,260 


23.493 

25,781 

54,436 

104,520 

137,275 


Total 


43,069 


30,131 


73,200 




203,350 


142,155 


345,505 



* The total need in the state (excluding Cook County) in pupil units is determined by sum- 
ming up the individual needs of the strata shown. The total need of each stratum is determined 
by multiplying by a ratio the elementary and secondary gymnasium needs of the sample counties 
within each stratum. The ratio of each stratum is the ratio of the total ADA of the stratum to 
the sum of the ADA of the sample counties within the stratum. 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 123 

the standards for the various kinds of facilities which might be provided, 
existing other-than-classroom space was considered only in terms of floor 
area, without regard to its present or potential usefulness. 

The estimate of 345,505 pupils needing gymnasium accommodations 
is based on objective standards and actual inspection of existing facili- 
ties. The figure shows the unreliability of the estimate on total other- 
than-classroom space needed. However, it cannot be taken as quantita- 
tively representing the inadequate organization of all such space, since 
the standards for gymnasium take into consideration the need of facili- 
ties for the increased emphasis on health and physical education. 

By use of the ratio, then, it is estimated that of a total estimated 
enrollment of 739,432 for the 101 counties, 305,867, or 41 per cent, need 
classroom accommodations; 345,505, or 47 per cent, need gymnasium ac- 
commodations; 196,901, or 26 per cent, need other-than-classroom accom- 
modations; and 533,313, or 72 per cent, need site facilities. 

Need stated in pupil units can be converted to cost figures on a per 
pupil cost basis or can be converted into space or area figures for trans- 
lation into cost figures on a per acre or per square foot or per cubic 
foot basis. 

School Housing Needs in Cook County 

Approximately 40 per cent of the school pupils of the state reside in 
Cook County. Thus, the school housing needs reported in the preceding 
section are based on consideration of only 60 per cent of all of the pupils 
of the state. 

One cannot compute total enrollment for Chicago and then subtract 
a count of the existing facilities in the city to reach an acceptable 
estimate of school housing needs any more than this could have been 
reasonably done for the state as a whole. In Chicago, consideration must 
also be given to where pupils are located. Chicago has a total of 8341 
elementary classrooms, of which 2358 are surplus rooms because they are 
in buildings serving attendance areas which have become commercial 
or industrial in character or have otherwise lost enrollment. In other 
sections of the city public housing projects or shifts in racial groups in- 
habiting given areas have produced excessive enrollments, so thai Chi- 
cago also has a great shortage of elementary classrooms. 

The housing projects and the population shifts currently under way 
in Cook County outside of Chicago present problems more like those 
within Chicago than in those of the other 101 counties of the state. To 
acquire estimates for Cook County or for Chicago which correspond to 
those for the 101 counties studied would require a complete study which 
considered reorganization and relocation of attendance centers or which 



124 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

depended upon a sample drawn on the basis of stratification according 
to land use or some other sociological classification. 

Lacking appropriate staff and time for such a study, one is con- 
fronted with the alternatives of stopping short of Cook County and 
clearly indicating that the study completed represents only 60 per cent 
of the pupils of the state or of accepting the most usable data available 
from school officials and attempting to translate them into terms corres- 
ponding to the balance of the study. 

The latter alternative was chosen. Cook County school officials re- 
ported that no pertinent data were available for schools outside of Chi- 
cago. Such omission leaves out of consideration about one per cent of 
the pupils of the state. This is considered negligible in that the probable 
error for the total study is likely in excess of one per cent. Estimates for 
the city of Chicago were developed on the basis of data obtained from 
the Division of Building Surveys and the Department of Architecture 
and Building Repair of the Chicago Public Schools. 

The most reliable estimate obtained in the study of the 101 counties 
was that of the number of pupils needing classroom facilities. Effort 
was centered on obtaining a corresponding estimate of the number of 
pupils needing classroom facilities in Chicago. The estimate of site 
needs for Chicago is reported for inclusion as a cost item with the site 
needs for the state as a whole. Sites for elementary schools in Chicago 
are three and one-half acres and less. If possible, such sites are located 
adjacent to a city park. Sites for high schools are from 10 to 20 acres. 
In its proposals for current development, the Division of Building Sur- 
veys has listed 30 building site proposals and four athletic field pro- 
posals. The site proposals for buildings include 22 new sites, of which 
three are adjacent to new site purchases proposed by the park commis- 
sion, six exchanges of site with the park commission, and two expansions 
of present sites. These 30 building site proposals include a total of 773 
acres at an estimated cost of $3,045,000. The estimated cost of sites for 
the four athletic fields, at $500,000 each, is $2 million. This represents 
an estimated total cost of $5,045,000 for school site proposals listed by 
the Division of Building Surveys. 

A list of Chicago elementary and secondary schools with data on 
enrollment and total floor area of each was supplied by the Division of 
Building Surveys. The number of classrooms in each building was re- 
ported for the elementary schools. Blueprints of many of the buildings 
were available from the Department of Architecture and Building Re- 
pair. 

It was assumed that elementary school classrooms had floor areas of 
700 or more square feet. Inspection of blueprints for 13 elementary 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 125 

buildings on which 309 classrooms were included disclosed that only five 
fell below this size. Since almost 99 per cent of the rooms thus examined 
had floor areas of 700 or more square feet, the classroom capacity of each 
elementary school was computed by taking the number of classrooms 
times 30 pupils. The capacity thus computed was compared with the 
enrollment of each building. Where excess capacity was available no 
need was listed for the building. For all other buildings, the difference 
between enrollment and capacity was listed as pupils needing classroom 
accommodations. 

The total for the city was found to be 40,362 elementary pupils need- 
ing classroom facilities according to the standards used in the study of 
101 counties. 

It should be pointed out that Chicago currently assigns an average 
of nearly 40 pupils per elementary classroom. By using the procedure 
described, 152 of the 336 elementary school buildings were found to have 
adequate or more-than-adequate classroom space for their present en- 
rollment at 30 pupils per classroom. By using the blueprints for 13 
elementary schools, the forms used in field survey of the sample counties 
were completed as an indication of the adequacy of the treatment used. 
Of the 13 schools whose blueprints were surveyed, six were found to have 
adequate or more-than-adequate classroom space for present enroll- 
ment. With the proportion of such schools surveyed from blueprints 
aligning so closely to the proportion of such schools for the entire city, 
it would seem that the procedure used in computing classroom need for 
the city has some validity. 

Because of the variety of sizes of rooms considered as secondary school 
classrooms according to the standards established for field study in the 
sample counties and because of a difference in classification of rooms 
as classrooms or other-than-classrooms between that used for the sample 
counties and the practice of Chicago school officials, it was not possible 
to follow the same procedure in determining the number of secondaiy 
school pupils needing classroom accommodations. 

The square feet of total area per pupil was calculated from the data 
supplied by the Division of Building Surveys, and the 39 high schools 
were arranged in order of largest to smallest ratios. It was assumed that 
at some determinable point on this list a division could be made between 
schools with excess classroom space and those with inadequate class- 
room space. To find such point the schools as listed were arbitrarily di- 
vided into six strata, and blueprints were inspected for schools from each 
stratum. By inspection of blueprints the survey forms used in the sam- 
ple counties were filled out for the high schools represented. This gave 
an indication of the point in the listing of high school buildings above 



126 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

which excess classroom capacity could be expected. Blueprints of several 
buildings close to this point were examined and the point was fixed above 
which excess classroom capacity would be found. The buildings listed 
above this point were considered to have adequate or more than adequate 
classroom capacity for current enrollment. 

Seventeen blueprints of high school buildings supplied usable data, 
and this was considered adequate consideration for the 39 high school 
buildings in Chicago. Of the 17 blueprints inspected, 13 were for schools 
below the division point between schools with adequate and inadequate 
classroom capacity for current enrollment. By use of the field survey 
forms it was determined that 4091 of the 24,801 pupils enrolled in these 
13 high schools need classroom accommodations in accordance with the 
standards used for the sample counties. By direct proportion to the 
75,239 pupils enrolled in all of the high schools below the division point, 
it was determined that 12,410 secondary school pupils in Chicago need 
classroom accommodations. 

Using data from the blueprints analyzed on the basis of the field sur- 
vey form, and following a similar procedure to that used for classrooms, 
a number of 16,124 pupils needing gymnasium facilities in the 17 high 
schools for which blueprints were inspected was blown up to a total of 
42,400 pupils in Chicago high schools needing gymnasium facilities ac- 
cording to the standards used for the 101 counties. Since it was impos- 
sible to compute the pupil need for gymnasium facilities for elementary 
schools, this estimate of the number of secondary school pupils needing 
gymnasium facilities cannot be combined with an estimate for elemen- 
tary pupils to represent the total need for such space. 

On the basis of current enrollment in the Chicago schools for which 
information was available, using the standards established for this 
study of school housing, there is need for additional classroom space to 
accommodate 52,772 pupils. 

This number does not correspond to the estimates for the 101 counties, 
since they were not based on current enrollments but on the assumption 
that all children of school age attend public schools at attendance cen- 
ters of appropriate size. 

To determine the potential enrollment available in Chicago, the fol- 
lowing procedure was used. From the 1940 Census Report 4 it was de- 
termined that of the 34,765,000 children in the 5-to-19 years age group 
in the United States, 728,620, or 2.096 per cent, lived in Chicago. An 
examination of previous reports indicated that this percentage was fairly 

4 Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Volume II, Population, Part 2, 
Washington, D. C, Government Printing Office, 1943. 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 127 

stable. By reference to the Census forecast 5 the percentage for Chicago 
was applied to the projected estimate for 1948 for the 5-to-19 years 
age group to find that of 34,755,000 children in this group in the United 
States, 728,465 live in Chicago. Since this represents an age span of 15 
years, and the study is concerned with an age span of 12 years corres- 
ponding to the 12 school grades, the figure was reduced by one-fifth to a 
potential enrollment of 582,772 in Chicago if all pupils of school age 
attended the public schools. 

By use of direct proportion, the estimated need of classroom space 
for 52,772 based on the total enrollment in the Chicago schools on which 
information was available was increased to an estimate of 90,261 repre- 
senting the need if all pupils of school age were in attendance in public 
schools. When this need is added to the estimate of 305,867 pupils need- 
ing classroom accommodations in the 101 counties, the total for the state 
is 396,128 pupils. 

The Cost of a School Housing Program 

Previous sections of this chapter have indicated, in pupil units, the 
school housing need to be met if pupils in Illinois are to be adequately 
housed in appropriately organized attendance units. Such estimates must 
be converted to cost figures if they are to be used in any program of 
implementation. This conversion should be made at the time such fig- 
ures are to be used, because of the rapid current fluctuation of construc- 
tion costs. 

The difficulty of obtaining dependable cost figures is indicated by 
the fact that contractors seek to build on a cost-plus basis and to avoid 
fixed contracts. The cost indices prepared by Harold Clark for the 
School Executive are based on labor and material cost indices but do 
not reflect the cost to consumer which includes the contractors' need of 
considering the relationship of such costs to availability of various ma- 
terials and to timing. In an N.E.A. study, useful cost figures were 
supplied on only 126 building projects. 6 These were of such a variety of 
types, materials, and locations that they were useful only as "straws in 
the wind." A project described as typical was an elementary school build- 
ing in a southern city for 385 pupils at an expenditure of $628 per pupil, 
87 cents per cubic foot, $12.97 per square foot of floor space. The median 
cost per cubic foot for the 126 projects was 86 cents. In the 1949 Year- 

5 Bureau of the Census. Cwrent Population Reports: Population Estimates, 
"Forecasts of Population and School Enrollment in the United States: 1948-1960," 
Series P-25, No. 18, Washington, D. C, Government Printing Office, Feb. 14, 1949. 

"National Education Association. Research Bulletin, School Housing Needs in 
City-School Systems, 1947-48, December, 1948, p. 164. 



128 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

book of the American Association of School Administrators, American 
School Buildings, the cost figures are reports on seven elementary school 
buildings and two secondary school buildings. One cannot depend upon 
such limited information for reliable predictive purposes. 

Whenever estimates of need expressed in pupil units are to be used 
in the development of a building program for the state, there are at least 
three alternative procedures for converting such estimates to cost figures. 

One might apply cost indices to a cost unit from some acceptable 
base year; a usable current cost figure might be obtained through collect- 
ing judgments from architects, contractors and realtors; or, cost figures 
might be obtained from current school house construction experience. 
For purposes of demonstration, the latter method is used in this study. 

Individuals doing the field work for the study reported site purchases 
and construction activity completed within the preceding 12 months or 
currently under way. For the 325 schools surveyed, 10 acquisitions of 
site were reported and 30 additions and new buildings were reported. 
Usable cost figures were available on seven school site projects and on 
nine new construction projects. These figures are reported in Tables XX 
and XXI. 

TABLE XX 

Site Cost Data 



Type of Site 


Number of Acres 


Total Cost 


Cost per Acre 


Partially Developed and Undeveloped 


30 


$60,000 


$ 2,000 


Undeveloped 


7 


7,000 


1,000 


Undeveloped 


15 


7,800 


520 


Developed 


1% 


33,000 


18,860 


Partially Developed and Undeveloped 


% 


3,000 


4,000 


Undeveloped Property 


5 


16,000 


3,200 


Undeveloped in Residential Area 


1 


2,500 


2,500 



To convert site estimates into cost figures it is necessary first to 
compute the number of acres from the estimate in pupil units. The aver- 
age estimated enrollment of the hypothetical attendance centers was 
computed to be 1300 for each high school and 900 for each elementary 
school. On the basis of site standards used, such enrollments would re- 
quire one and a half acres per 100 elementary pupils and one and three- 
fourths acres per 100 high school pupils. By multiplying the estimated 
number of elementary pupils in the 101 counties needing site by one 
and one-half acres per 100 pupils (349,031 x .015), one finds that 5235 
acres of site are needed for elementary school pupils. By multiplying 
the estimated number of .secondary pupils in the 101 counties needing 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 



129 



TABLE XXI 

Building Cost Data 





Elementary 






Cost per 


Cost per 


Cost per 




or 


Total 


Pupil 


Pupil 


Cubic 


Square 


Type of Construction 


Secondary 


Cost 


Stations 


Station 


Foot 


Foot 


Classrooms and 














Gym (Addition) 


Elementary 


$230,000 


275 


$ 836 


$ .82 


$11.53 


Two Classrooms and 














Basement (Addition) 


Elementary 


23,000 


40 


575 


1.21 


10.89 


Four Classrooms 














(Addition) 


Elementary 


37,462 


100 


375 


.96 


10.41 


New Academic Structure 














17 Classrooms, 4 Special 














Educ. Classrooms, Gym, 














Auditorium & Cafeteria 


Elementary 


400,000 


500 


800 


.80 


....t 


Agriculture Shop 














(Addition) 


Secondary 


54,800 


25 


2,192 


1.00 


16.46 


New Shops and 














Classrooms 


Secondary 


528,000 


300 


1,760 


.64 


11.28 


New Academic Structure 














and Field House 


Secondary 


1,823,000 


1,450 


1,259 


.65 


14.44 


New Academic 














Structure * 


Secondary 


683,785 


425 


1,609 


1.08 


13.45 


New Gymnasium * 




277,736 




653 


.62 


16.30 


Gym, Stage, and 














Shop Addition 


Secondary 


65,000 


78 


833 


. . . .T 


16.25 



* Same School Reported Construction Data for Gym 
Construction. 

t No Data Available. 



and Academic Structure Now Under 



site by one and three-fourths acres per 100 pupils (184,282 x .0175), one 
finds that 3227 acres of site are needed for secondary school pupils. 
(This total of 8462 acres was checked against a figure obtained by apply- 
ing a rough ratio of 101/21 to the 1763 acres of site needed in the sample 
counties as reported by field workers which indicated a need of 8479 
acres for the 101 counties.) 

The scant indication of costs reported by seven schools as shown in 
Table XX gives no valid basis for establishing an average price per acre. 
The cost of property in cities is indicated by the estimated cost of site 
proposals reported by Chicago school officials and by the $33,000 price 
on a half block of developed property in a southern Illinois city. If one 
were to take a price of $3,000 an acre for purposes of estimation^ the total 
cost for purchase of school sites in the 101 counties would amount to 
$25,437,000. If we accept and add to this total the amount of $5,045,000 
representing the estimated cost of the site proposals currently listed by 
the Chicago Division of Building Surveys the total estimated cost of site 
purchases would be $30,482,000. 



130 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

As indicated above, the current building cost data are inadequate as 
the basis of any cost estimate. The usable building cost data reported 
from schools included in the field study are recorded in Table XXI. Of 
the nine projects reported, four are for elementary pupils and five are 
for high school pupils. As in the case of the cost data reported in the 
N.E.A. research study, 7 there is wide variety in the size, the purpose, 
and the kind of construction reported. When there are but nine cases and 
the range is as great as from $375 to $2262 one cannot rely on any 
measure of central tendency. The costs reported from these schools in- 
cluded in the field study and the costs reported elsewhere on a per pupil 
basis are in terms of a variety of space standards and not in agreement 
with those established for this study. 

Of the elementary school construction costs reported in Table XXI 
only one represents construction including all facilities. This per pupil 
cost of construction is reported as $800 for 500 pupils. The indication 
of current building costs in American School Buildings* included $828 
per pupil in Arizona, $679 per pupil in California, $642 and $903 per 
pupil in Kentucky, $834 and $1003 per pupil in New York, and $1073 per 
pupil in Oregon. If the typical project cited in the N.E.A. research study 
is translated into space standards equivalent to those used in this study, 
the per pupil cost would be nearer $800 than $628. On the basis of these 
"straws in the wind," it would seem that a cost estimate of $800 or more 
per elementary pupil is not unreasonable. Any lower estimate would be 
inadequate. 

Building costs for secondary schools were reported for only two pro- 
jects in the American School Buildings. 9 These were both in California, 
and the per pupil costs were $1743 and $2136 per pupil. In Table XXI 
three of the secondary building projects reported furnish complete facili- 
ties with per pupil costs of $1259, $1760, and $2262. The latter figure is 
not an altogether fair per pupil cost since the building projects (academic 
structure and gymnasium) include provision of other-than-classroom 
accommodations for more than the 425 pupils reported, but the total 
cost was divided on the basis of 425 pupils. If one is very conservative 
and takes the lowest of these figures, $1259, a per pupil figure of $1000 
might be taken in striking an average with the $800 elementary figure. 
It should be stressed that the $1000 per pupil cost figure cannot be de- 
fended as adequate on the basis of any available data. It is taken only 
as a basis of estimating costs and with the knowledge that it represents 

' Op. (At., p. 163-4. 

"American School Buildings, 27th Yearbook, American Association of Admin- 
istrators; Washington, D.C., p. 290. 
9 Op. tit., p. 290. 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 131 

a figure which can be easily changed when more accurate cost estimates 
are available. 

All of the cost figures discussed above make no distinction in the cost 
of classroom, other-than-classroom, or gymnasium space. Estimated 
needs reported in Tables XVII, XVIII, XIX were not derived in such a 
manner as to permit acceptable consolidation into the number of pupils 
needing complete facilities. One might compute by area or by cubic 
volume the separate space needs indicated by the three tables, convert 
these into cost figures and add them together for an estimate of total 
cost. This procedure would be desirable if accurate cost estimates were 
available. 

In view of the inadequate cost data available, it was determined to use 
$1000 per pupil for estimating purposes. Although the estimate of the 
number of pupils needing classroom facilities is not an estimate of the 
number of pupils needing complete facilities, it is the most usable of 
any of the estimates developed. It was pointed out that the low estimate 
of pupils needing other-than-classroom facilities in the 101 counties is 
erroneous in that it did not take into consideration the organization of 
such space, as evidenced by the much greater need of pupils for gym- 
nasium space. 

On the basis of all of the assumptions made in this study, using as 
representative of pupils needing complete building facilities the number 
of pupils estimated as needing classroom facilities, and using the very 
conservative per pupil cost figure of $1000, it would cost $396,128,000 
to provide building facilities for the 396,128 pupils. If the estimate of the 
cost of acquiring sites, $30,482,000, is added to this estimate, it would 
require $426,610,000 to provide adequate school housing for Illinois. 

Such an estimate includes only a conservative cost estimate for the 
additional facilities required and does not give consideration to any 
estimate for repair, alteration, or replacement of existing facilities now 
used in hypothetical attendance centers unless they are frame ones. 

Alternative Plans for Financing School Building Needs 

It is obvious that the need for school housing facilities for effectively 
located attendance centers is so great that it is not likely to be met readily 
if left entirely to local communities as it has been in the past. How may 
the state discharge its obligation? 

Much research and consideration are yet to be directed to the prob- 
lem of the relationship of state aid to capital outlay financing. The 
effects of and the theories underlying current practices of the various 
states need careful investigation. What are the relative merits of con- 
fining state aid to current expenses, to total expenses, to current expenses 



132 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

with addition of an amount for capital outlay as in Florida, or of distrib- 
uting special aid for school house construction projects? 10 This chapter 
has not dealt with such problems. Growing out of the hypothesis of this 
study, however, are implications for the kinds of research yet to be ac- 
complished in Illinois in order to answer such questions. 

On the basis of school attendance, unit size, and the physical plant 
standards accepted for this study, the present school plant facilities of 
the state fall short of providing adequate school housing by nearly 
400,000 pupil units. The people of the state have to consider not only 
the provision of the additional facilities required, but the continuing 
maintenance of school plant facilities for all pupils of the state. It is 
assumed that provision of additional facilities should be accomplished 
as quickly as possible and that the problem of maintenance would be 
continuing. How may the total cost of each aspect of this problem be 
computed? 

By a procedure similar to that illustrated in this study, the total 
needs unmet by existing facilities must be determined. Such a procedure 
involves agreement upon standards of school housing to be provided to 
all pupils. 

In addition to those established in this study, there should be some 
more adequate listing of the kinds of space organization desirable for 
other-than-classroom use and some means of checking it. The method 
of counting need should make possible the determination of the number of 
pupils needing complete plant facilities as differentiated from those need- 
ing specific facilities as classified. Such procedure also involves agree- 
ment on standards of organization for attendance centers which should 
be derived from a definition of an appropriately organized school district 
acceptable to the people of Illinois. A study could then be conducted, fol- 
lowing the pattern established by this pilot study, to determine the total 
amount of money required to provide adequate school housing for all 
Illinois children of school age. Such study would establish the overall 
cost of the short-term program for making facilities adequate. An alter- 
native to this approach would be estimating needs by extensive school 
building surveys in all local units in the state. 

Each year additional classrooms become obsolete. In addition to costs 
required to put school plants in the state on an adequate basis now, 
consideration must be given to maintaining that level in the future. The 
cost of maintenance through repair, alteration, and replacement is a con- 
tinuing cost. One might assume that the entire state were on a scheduled 
program of replacing schoolhouse facilities each thirty years. The annual 

"National Education Association, Research Division, "Statutory Bases of State 
Foundation Programs for Schools." Research Bulletin 26:68-78, April, 1948. 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 133 

cost of such a replacement program to the entire state would be approxi- 
mately one-thirtieth of the current value of all new schoolhouse facilities 
now needed and all schoolhouse facilities currently usable in properly 
organized attendance centers as determined by the study. The short- 
term cost for new buildings and the long-term cost of the replacement 
program represent the total program of school housing to be financed. 

To estimate the share to be borne by the state or to determine the 
manner in which the state may share in financing buildings requires an 
examination of the possible costs to be borne by local communities. 

At the present time schoolhouse construction and maintenance are 
financed by local districts through income from building fund levies and 
through bonding. Most Illinois school districts finance schoolhouse con- 
struction through issuance of bonds. 

Under the state constitution, local districts may bond up to five 
per cent of full valuation. This cannot all be required for the foundation 
program of school housing. Some leeway must be left to make it possi- 
ble for local communities to go beyond the uniform standards of school 
housing facilities to be made available to all pupils of the state. Of 
the five per cent, one and one-half per cent might be left to provide such 
local leeway and the other three and one-half per cent might be con- 
sidered as a basis for computing the share of local communities in the 
total cost of providing adequate and modern school housing for Illinois 
children. 

Viewing these needs as state-wide needs, let us see if the obligation 
may be delegated to local administrative units. Since our orientation is 
toward financing buildings for "improved attendance centers and reor- 
ganization," we will consider what new reorganized districts can do in 
meeting these needs. The 197 community unit districts of the state which 
had been formed as of March, 1949, had an average valuation per pupil 
of $21,329. 14. n In these 197 districts the total average bonding capacity 
is, therefore, only $1066 per pupil at the five per cent maximum possible. 
Assuming that local districts should be allowed a leeway of one and one- 
half per cent of bonding capacity, the average local capacity of these 
districts at three and one-half per cent is only $746 per pupil. It is to 
be emphasized that this is the average for them and in many cases the 
valuation available at three and one-half per cent would be considerably 
less than $746. 

Further study is needed to ascertain the location of the estimated 
one-half a billion dollars worth of immediate building needs as the loca- 
tion of needs is related to local property valuations. Nevertheless, it is 

"Progress Report No. 12 on School Reorganization in Illinois. Issued by the 
State Advisory Commission. Springfield: March 19, 1949. 



134 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

generally known that building needs parallel needs for current operating 
costs. That is to say, that areas in greatest need for state assistance for 
operation or current expense are generally the areas in the greatest 
need for aid in reducing the immediate backlog of housing deficiencies. 
Therefore, the total valuation in 1947 of $21,041,179,855 in the state could 
produce $736 millions at three and one-half per cent if (1) the local 
valuations were so located with respect to building needs as to be usable, 
and if (2) there was not already an outstanding bonded indebtedness to 
be taken into account. The outstanding bonded indebtedness on June 
30, 1948, for building purposes was $131,234,188. 12 It is to be noted that 
much of this outstanding indebtedness is in areas of the state in which 
there are now building needs of a type examined in this study for which 
there is no bonding capacity or for which local bond issues cannot be 
issued within the five per cent limit. It is evident that placing all respon- 
sibility for the financing of school building needs upon local units is as 
indefensible as is leaving current expenditures to the fortuitous resources 
of local taxes. If the state is to recognize a goal of guaranteeing, through 
a pattern of local administration, a minimum of educational opportunity, 
it must inevitably participate in the financial support of schoolhouse 
construction. 

As has been demonstrated in this volume, providing attendance units, 
that is to say, properly located and adequate school buildings, is a major 
objective of school reorganization. It may be seen, therefore, that the 
school building needs of the state are an integral aspect of the reorganiza- 
tion problem. Leaving to local resources responsibility for providing the 
adequate school plant will not only fail to achieve the school building 
needs of the state but will stand as a barrier to the solution of the com- 
panion problem, that of reorganization of school districts. 

In turning to other alternatives of financing the needed school build- 
ings, alternatives which will involve financial support from the state 
government, it should be pointed out that the methods chosen might 
not be the same for the short-term and the long-term needs. We shall, 
therefore, make the distinction between the kinds of continuing needs 
which school districts would have if they were all properly organized and 
now had buildings in order to maintain an adequate level of physical 
plant in the state for all children, and the types of needs which have been 
pointed out in this chapter which would be necessary to effectuate a gen- 
uine program of reorganization of districts and to get local units set up 
in business, so to speak. 

12 Compiled from 1948 Annual Reports of County Superintendents on file in the 
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. 



-SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 135 

For either type of outlay, assistance from the state is 'essential. For 
the first type, the continuing expenditure for debt service and capital 
outlay which districts would be expected in the future to make, even if 
they were all properly equipped with buildings today, is generally ac- 
cepted by writers on finance as a suitable object of state aid to local 
units following a plan of equalization quite similar to that used in financ- 
ing of current expenditures. An example of this type of financing is the 
system now used in the state of Florida to which reference already has 
been made. Immediate short-term needs, such as those described in this 
study, could be financed by state grants on an equalization basis such 
that each individual housing plan can be considered on its own merits. 
This is essentially the type of financing which was engaged upon in large 
scale during the 1930's through the federal works program. One difficulty 
with the federal works system, however, was that matching was on a 
50-50 basis so that the rate of effort of local units' contribution to build- 
ings constructed did not vary with local ability. Techniques are available 
for what is known as "variable matching" which is suitable for this type 
of short-term stimulative financing. 13 

One method of meeting the cost of the short-term, immediate needs 
is described in the following: Assume that the state is to meet its obliga- 
tion of providing the school housing estimated in this study; that such 
provision is to be made only in appropriately organized attendance cen- 
ters; that the total number of children of school age in the state is 
1,325,000; and that the full valuation of the state is $30 billion. 

If the state decides to spread the short-term program of meeting addi- 
tional needs over a five-year period, a total of $85 million per year would 
be required for these five years. 

Then there is the permanent, "long-term" cost. If the valuation of 
current usable school housing in appropriately organized attendance cen- 
ters and those to be provided were assumed to be $1000 per pupil, or 
$1325 million for the state, and one-thirtieth of this amount were to be 
provided each year of the long-term continuing expenditure for replace- 
ment or alteration, the annual cost for such purposes would be $44,- 
167,000. 

During the first five years, therefore, the entire state would be con- 
fronted with an annual cost of $129,167,000. In subsequent years the 
annual cost would be $44,167,000. 

If the total bonding capacity up to the limit to be utilized could be 
available for meeting the local communities' share of the cost, an annual 

"This system is now in use in the state of Washington. For an analysis of 
equalized matching formulas see Cornell, Francis G. "Grant-in- Aid Apportionment 
Formulas." Journal of the American Statistical Association 42:92-104; March, 1947. 



136 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

bond issue of one-twentieth of three and one-half per cent of the $30 bil- 
lion total valuation of the state would produce $52,500,000. 

Thus the state government would need to make available an amount 
of $76,667,000 annually for the five years of the short-term program of 
catching up. 

Although the cost of the program and the state's share in that program 
might be computed as illustrated above, there is little likelihood that 
schoolhouse construction would proceed rapidly enough to complete the 
provision of adequate facilities within a five-year period. Only if a state 
were arbitrarily to reorganize attendance centers and districts, impose 
bonded indebtedness on local districts, and build school buildings could 
this be assured. Such intensive construction activity would likely raise 
the cost of construction to an almost prohibitive level. 

The above procedure, then, is simply illustrative of one method in 
which the state's share in the total cost could be computed. 

To make such a program financially possible, and to be in a position 
to allow the program to move as rapidly as local communities would re- 
organize and would undertake building programs, the state would have 
to appropriate the amount required during the five-year period or over 
whatever period were chosen. 

State aid for the provision of new facilities as determined by some 
plan of local survey would be distributed to properly organized schools 
as they proceed to build the additional facilities needed in their districts. 

State aid for the long-term program of maintaining adequate school 
facilities might be distributed as properly organized schools under- 
took replacement or alteration projects. Such procedure as to main- 
tenance would involve considerable leadership and planning service on 
the part of a department of school buildings and grounds in the Office 
of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

Considering the rate at which additional districts are likely to reor- 
ganize and at which school house construction activity is likely to be 
undertaken throughout the state, it would seem that the state should 
assume a first obligation in meeting its share of the cost of the short-term 
program of helping all districts provide sufficient school housing for all 
children of the state. As such adequacy is achieved in each local district, 
the district might then begin to receive school-plant aid as part of its 
general state-aid income. 

State aid for school house construction in accomplishing the short- 
term program would be available only to districts meeting standards of 
acceptable size and organization and for building projects meeting 
standards of adequacy. 

The amount available to a district would depend upon its need as de- 



SCHOOL HOUSING FOR LARGER UNITS 137 

termined by the lack of present facilities for the pupil population and the 
additional funds needed considering the appropriate proportion of its 
legal bonding power. A district of appropriate size and organization al- 
ready indebted for more than the proportion of its bonding power agreed 
upon for provision of facilities meeting the accepted standards of ade- 
quacy should receive proportionate state aid in the amortization of its 
indebtedness. School districts of appropriate size and organization al- 
ready providing adequate facilities without indebtedness exceeding the 
proportion agreed upon would begin to receive school-plant aid annually 
as part of their general state aid income. 

In view of the extensive need indicated by this study, most state 
aid provided for the short-term program would be utilized to stimulate 
new construction. Such stimulation of new construction would promote 
district reorganization and would tend to provide adequate school housing 
for all Illinois children of school age as quickly as possible. 

Such aid should be paid to meet construction costs as they are in- 
curred, rather than as assistance on amortization of indebtedness for 
the new construction project. In this way a considerable amount of the 
interest cost of funding the project can be avoided. 

In newly reorganized districts and with the reorganization of attend- 
ance centers, some present school property will not be used for school 
purposes because of location or other reasons. In districts receiving aid 
on new building projects, all income from the sale of such present school 
property should be credited to the local district. It might be provided 
further that income to the local district from such sale of property should 
be used for capital outlay purposes. 

The state could further aid in the provision of school housing by 
providing specialists in the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruc- 
tion who would be available for consultation and for assistance with local 
building surveys. Such specialists might be made responsible for approv- 
ing plans and buildings according to the standards of adequacy devel- 
oped. They should be constantly revising and improving such standards. 

State supervision might be restricted to applying a reliable cost esti- 
mate to acceptable standards in terms of pupil or classroom units and 
using such cost limitation as the control of the state's share in the ex- 
penditure. 

It is recognized that such a proposal calls for considerable effort on 
the part of the state for the short-term program. By making such effort, 
a state could put the physical plant for its educational system in condi- 
tion to realize the efficient and effective educational program desired. 
Such effort would require either additional state taxes or a considerable 
restriction on other state spending. 



138 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

The importance of this chapter is its approach rather than the actual 
statistics it develops. Nevertheless, the findings of the study do give evi- 
dence of the tremendous need of schoolhouse construction in Illinois. 
Nearly 400,000 pupil units of school housing are needed to provide ade- 
quate space according to acceptable standards. 

With so great a need, the state must take a position of active leader- 
ship. If the problem is left to local districts they likely will continue to 
avoid reorganization because of their distaste for the bonded indebted- 
ness to be incurred by the construction required under reorganization. 
They would then continue to operate inefficient small schools and to 
spend even more money over the long span of time in repairing and re- 
placing the many small and continuously inadequate buildings which 
such districts now operate. 

A realistic approach on the elimination of the backlog of school- 
house construction on the part of the state might stimulate school reor- 
ganization and the attainment of adequacy, so that the state would 
achieve a situation in which most, if not all, of the cost of repair and 
replacement of the school plant could be accomplished out of local re- 
sources at reasonable cost. 

The implementation of any such program would involve: 

1. Definition of appropriately organized elementary and secondary 
attendance centers acceptable to people of the state. 

2. Development of standards of school-housing adequacy which 
should be provided for all children of the state. 

3. Survey, following a pattern similar to that of this study, of school 
housing need if all children of school age in the state are to be able to 
attend schools in such attendance centers. 

4. Study of the present bonded indebtedness of the school districts 
of the state and of the bonding leeway of local districts. Such study 
would be concerned with the amount of indebtedness and of leeway avail- 
able and also with an appropriate division of local bonding power as 
qualifying for state aid on foundation needs or for local leeway for 
developmental provision of plant facilities beyond foundation need. 

5. Computation of the cost of such a program to the state on the 
basis of reliable current cost estimates. 

6. Planning the funding of the program on the part of the state. 

7. Planning for the administration of such state funds. 



APPENDIX I 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPARSITY FORMULA 

The formula already stated for computing the sparsity factor, and 
hence the total sparsity correction, for a given county was based on a 
measure of sparsity of rural pupils expressed as average number of such 
pupils per square mile, commonly termed density of population. The 
research involved in developing this formula was done in two steps. In 
the first step, a formula was developed with the measure of pupil sparsity 
expressed in terms of average scatter or distance between pupils in rural 
areas. This measure has been the basis for developing similar formulas in 
the states of West Virginia, New York, and Mississippi. 1 However, the 
mathematical terms necessary to express sparsity as average distance 
between rural pupils were somewhat too complicated to be readily under- 
stood by the average layman. Therefore, this measure of sparsity was 
translated into the form more widely understood; namely the average 
number of rural pupils per square mile of land area. Then, the formula 
utilizing sparsity in terms of average distance between rural pupils be- 
came an intermediate step in the development of the more simplified 
form. 

Formula Utilizing Measure of Sparsity 
in Terms of Average Distance Between Rural Pupils 

The first step in developing the formula was to obtain a criterion for 
each county in the state. The criterion was the sum of corrections of 
both manifestations of sparsity for their effect on the cost of a founda- 
tion program, namely extra costs of small schools and transportation. 

The small-school corrections were obtained by a technique first de- 
veloped by Mort 2 in the state of New York. This technique was 
adopted into law in that state in 1925 as a basis for equalizing the finan- 
cial support of small schools, and it is still in use. Several states use 
this technique in modified form. 

The procedure was to determine the average practice among elemen- 
tary and high schools in Illinois with respect to the number of teaching 
personnel 3 in schools of various sizes. Tabulations were made first of ele- 
mentary schools in both unit and independent districts. All elementary 

1 McLure, op. cit., Number I, Volume I, p. 62. 

2 Mort, P. R. The Measurement of Educational Need. New York : Bureau of 
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1923. 

8 Meaning regular classroom teachers, special teachers, supervisors, principals, 
and superintendents. 

[139] 




oo 
a 

•*■ 
O 



O 

to 

o 



c ^- 















u 





_Q 






c 

TJ 


u 


E 






O 'O 
O t 
10 < 


to 


z 






> 


ro 


c 








4- 






Q 


C 


ro 












_ 






CI 

o 2 


E 


o 
o 






O 


a) 






< 


LU 


u 






n 


«/) 


to 
















a. 


U 


o 






3 


r 








o "■ 




<D 






O "o 


— 


N 








«-*- 


i/> 




u 


F 










~ 


3 


r. 


4- 




Q 


Z 





O) 


j; 


c 


o 


4- 


c 




o 


o 

to 


3 


^ 


5 


c 
n 




— 

4- 


o 

u 
u 


'E 
3 


c 
-o 
c 


o 


Q 


< 


• 





o 










0J 


O 

cs 








o 


< 








o 


X 









SJeqseaj^ jo Jaqain^ 



APPENDIX I 141 

schools in the state were tabulated according to number of pupils in aver- 
age daily attendance and the corresponding number of teaching personnel. 
Then the schools were grouped, tabulated according to size in intervals of 
ten pupils, and the average number of teachers was obtained for the 
schools of each interval. Results were plotted as shown in Chart 20 with 
the horizontal scale representing school size in intervals of 10 pupils and 
the vertical scale representing the corresponding average number of all 
teaching personnel. It was necessary to obtain the average number of 
teachers per school by intervals of size because of the difficulty of plotting 
individual schools. Each dot, therefore, usually represents several schools. 
Lines of best fit, representing average practice, consist of three broken-line 
segments. The line through dots of schools of more than 288 pupils re- 
presents an average of 24 pupils per teacher. If schools below this size 
had employed an average of one teacher for each 24 pupils, the line of 
best fit would be represented by the broken-line segment extending down 
to the origin of the chart. But this was not the case. It is noted that 
most of the dots are above this line, meaning that these schools had, 
on the average, fewer than 24 pupils per teacher. The smaller the school, 
the smaller was the number of pupils per teacher. 

Average practice of staffing schools of varying sizes was used as the 
basis for weighting small elementary schools below 288 pupils in average 
daily attendance. The procedure was this: (1) for each approved school 
with 80 pupils or fewer, the number of weighted pupil units would be the 
sum of 3 and 1.4 times the number of pupils in actual average daily attend- 
ance; (2) in schools with more than 80 pupils in average daily attendance 
but not more than 288, count 115 pupils units for the first 80 pupils in 
average daily attendance and .83 of a pupil unit for each additional pupil 
in excess of 80; (3) in schools with more than 288 actual pupils in average 
daily attendance, the number of pupil units is equal to the actual number 
of pupils in average daily attendance. 

These formulas for obtaining the number of pupil units in elementary 
schools of various sizes were applied to every district in the state operat- 
ing an elementary school in 1946-1947. The result was a total number of 
elementary pupil units, weighted for school size. The difference between 
the number of weighted pupil units and the number of actual pupils in at- 
tendance was the small-school correction for elementary grades. 

This same procedure was followed in obtaining a small-school correc- 
tion for the high school grades, ('hart 21 shows a distribution of all 
high schools in Illinois according to number of pupils in average daily 
attendance on the horizontal scale and the corresponding number of 
teaching personnel on the vertical scale. Tn most cases each dot represents 
several schools. Schools were tabulated according to size in intervals of 



1 1 u 
IfiO 




































1 cz o — 






CHART 21. Distribution of Illi- 
nois High Schools in 1947-1948 
According to Size of School and 
Number of Teachers 














i4.n 


















i^n . ■ ■ 




































1 -J u 

120 — 
110 — 
ion ■ . 


























/a 


o 




























c 
















































on . 




































JU 
0) 

m nn 




































re hu 

►- 

01 7f~l 














( 


1 / 






















J5 fU 

E 

3 
Z 

ir n 















o . 

/ 
0/ 
































c 


o o / 

/ 

























ou — 










/ 

> o/ 


























4U 










o / 

m 
/ \ 

/ 


9 


























20 — 
10 — 






/o 

J* 

'f6 


• 












• UniT uisrncrs 

O Independent Districts 






oj 


/ 
































r 


y 

































I 

o 


1 

o 


1 

o 


1 

o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 
q. 


O 

o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


<*■_ 


(0 


00 


- 


C\J 


* 


<£> 


00 










CvJ 





o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


<3- 


U> 


00 


o 


CsJ 


<a- 














C\J 


OJ 


CM 


IO 


IO 


ro 



Number of Pupils 



APPENDIX I 143 

ten pupils, as was done with the elementary schools. That is to say, 
schools between 95 and 105 were tabulated as having 100 pupils. The 
vertical component of schools in this interval was their average number 
of teachers. Lines of best fit were drawn as three broken-line segments. 
Schools with more than 673 pupils had an average of 20 pupils per teacher, 
and for this group of schools the line of best fit had a slope of one. 

It will be noted that in high schools with fewer than 673 pupils, the 
average number of pupils per teacher decreased with the size of the school. 
Therefore, if we recognize average practice in staffing as a valid basis 
for making corrections, there are two ways of expressing corrections for 
small schools. The correction can be expressed as weighted pupils so 
that the average number of teachers of schools of various sizes now in 
practice would be credited with having 20 pupils, the number found in the 
large schools. Or, the correction can be expressed in terms of weighted 
classroom units. In this case the number of units always would be 1/20 
of the number of weighted pupil units. 

The use of average practice in staffing schools as a basis for weight- 
ing small schools involved an assumption which should be mentioned at 
this time. Teachers' salaries consist of approximately 70 per cent of all 
current expenses, exclusive of transportation. Therefore, the assumption 
was that the remaining 30 per cent of current expenses was distributed 
among schools of various sizes in about the same proportion as staff load. 
Experience supports this assumption as a fair one. 

The procedure for obtaining the number of weighted pupil units for 
small high schools of various sizes was this: (1) In any approved high 
school with 98 or fewer pupils in average daily attendance the number of 
pupil units is equal to the sum of 34 and 1.23 times the number of actual 
pupils in average daily attendance. In high schools with fewer than 36 
pupils, or an average of nine pupils per grade, no weighting was given for 
unapproved schools. In these cases the actual average daily attendance 
was taken as the number of pupil units. (2) In high schools with more 
than 98 pupils in actual attendance, but not more than 673, the number of 
pupil units for a given school was determined by counting 155 weighted 
pupils for the first 98 actual pupils and .9 weighted pupil for each actual 
pupil in excess of 98. 

This procedure was followed in calculating the number of pupil units 
in every high school in each county. The difference between the number 
of weighted pupil units and the number of actual pupils in attendance 
was the small high-school correction, expressed in pupil units. This cor- 
rection was added to the correction for small elementary schools, and a 
total small-school correction was obtained for each county. Now, this 
small-school correction for each county represented only one manifesta- 



144 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

tion of extra cost attributable to sparsity of population. The other 
manifestation was transportation cost for that year (1946-1947). The 
problem then was to express transportation cost in terms of pupil units 
and not dollars, since the purpose was to determine a criterion in pupil 
units. 

Transportation cost, expressed in dollars, was translated into 
weighted pupil units equivalent to $156 per unit. This unit value was 
obtained by dividing the total current expenditure of the state, exclusive 
of transportation, by the total number of pupil units, weighted for small 
schools. That is to say, the average expenditure of the state per weighted 
pupil unit in 1946-1947 was $156 for expenses of current operation, ex- 
clusive of transportation. Therefore, assuming that average practice with 
respect to transportation cost was a fair criterion, the average expendi- 
ture per unit for other current expenses was used for translating trans- 
portation cost into units of need. The result then was expressed in terms 
of pupil units. 

The next step was to add the numbers of pupil units in each county 
for both manifestations of sparsity, namely small schools and transporta- 
tion. Where a county had many small schools, little consolidation, and 
hence little transportation, most of the correction showed up as a small- 
school correction. On the other hand, where a county had a relatively 
large amount of consolidation and few small schools, most of the correc- 
tion showed up in the form of transportation. The result, however, was 
one figure, a total sparsity correction expressed as cost units of need (the 
pupil). This figure was the criterion which was used for developing the 
sparsity formula based upon average distance between rural pupils. 

The next step was to relate this criterion to a measure of population 
sparsity which has been found in other studies 4 as a useful means of esti- 
mating this total correction on a county-wide basis. The measure of 
sparsity of rural school population was obtained by dividing the land 
area of each county in square miles by the number of rural pupils in 
average daily attendance and obtaining the square root of the quotient. 

The basic data used in developing the sparsity formula are shown in 
Table XXII. An explanation of how the formula works will be given for 
Adams County. When the land area of this county, 860 square miles, is 
divided by 2873, the number of rural pupils, the quotient is .2993. This 
figure is not shown, but the square root of it, .54, is shown in Column 3. 
The square roots of similar quotients of all counties are shown in this 
column. The figures in Column 3 represent average distances between 
rural pupils and may be explained this way. Again, referring to Adams 

4 McLure, Strayer, op. cit. 



APPENDIX I 



145 



TABLE XXII 



Basic Data for Developing Sparsity Formula 
(1946-1947 Data) 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


(6) 

Predicted 
Sparsity 

Correction 
(Pupil 
Units) 


(7) 


County 


Area 
(Sq. Mi.) 


Number 

of 
Rural -\ 
Pupils* 


/ Area 
/ No. 
/ Rural 
V Pupils 


Criterion 

Correction 

Per Rural 

Pupil 


Sparsity 

Factor 

(Regressed 

Value) 


Criterion 

Correction 

(Pupil 

Units) 


Adams 


860 


2,873 


.54 


.60 


.60 


1,731 


1,727 


Alexander 


220 


1,884 


.34 


.38 


.36 


687 


737 


Bond 


382 


1,746 


.46 


.52 


.51 


886 


917 


Boone 


280 


1,235 


.47 


.50 


.52 


641 


621 


Brown 


307 


1,042 


.54 


.55 


.60 


628 


572 


Bureau 


863 


4,367 


.44 


.50 


.48 


2,112 


2,185 


Calhoun 


259 


1,079 


.49 


.57 


.54 


586 


621 


Carroll 


465 


2,383 


.44 


.48 


.48 


1,152 


1,158 


Cass 


369 


1,461 


.50 


.52 


.56 


811 


767 


Champaign 


993 


4,808 


.45 


.50 


.50 


2,382 


2,420 


Christian 


706 


3,370 


.45 


.47 


.50 


1,670 


1,599 


Clark 


502 


1,959 


.50 


.55 


.56 


1,087 


1,093 


Clay 


462 


2,119 


.46 


.50 


.51 


1,075 


1,069 


Clinton 


497 


2,222 


.47 


.53 


.52 


1,154 


1,180 


Coles 


500 


2,057 


.49 


.57 


.54 


1,117 


1,174 


Cookt 


790 


18,918 


.20 


.19 


20 


3,746 


3,682 


Crawford 


441 


3,916 


.33 


.32 


.35 


1,381 


1,240 


Cumberland 


347 


1,730 


.44 


.50 


.48 


836 


837 


De Kalb 


625 


2,594 


.49 


.60 


.54 


1,409 


1,582 


De Witt 


397 


1,865 


.46 


.55 


.51 


946 


1,031 


Douglas 


419 


2,733 


.39 


.40 


.42 


1,159 


1,118 


Du Page 


297 


5,103 


.24 


26 


.25 


1,253 


1,326 


Edgar 


625 


2,324 


.51 


.61 


.57 


1,317 


1,427 


Edwards 


225 


1,326 


.41 


.39 


.45 


594 


523 


Effingham 


481 


2,367 


.45 


.49 


.50 


1,173 


1,161 


Fayette 


716 


3,218 


.47 


.51 


.52 


1,671 


1,669 


Ford 


485 


1,987 


.49 


.60 


.54 


1,079 


1.206 


Franklin 


425 


4,133 


.32 


.38 


.34 


1,409 


1,565 


Fulton 


870 


5,412 


.40 


.45 


.44 


2,360 


2,447 


Gallatin 


328 


1,828 


.42 


.45 


.46 


841 


829 


Greene 


539 


2,296 


.48 


.49 


.53 


1,220 


1,126 


Grundy 


430 


1,970 


.46 


.56 


.51 


1,000 


1,107 


Hamilton 


434 


1,553 


.52 


.58 


.58 


899 


913 


Hancock 


796 


3,829 


.45 


.53 


.50 


1,897 


2,066 


Hardin 


183 


1,586 


.34 


.37 


.36 


578 


599 


Henderson 


381 


1,430 


.51 


.62 


.57 


811 


889 


Henry 


823 


3,348 


.50 


.51 


.56 


1,858 


1,735 


Iroquois 


1,120 


4,336 


.50 


.63 


.56 


2,406 


2,771 


Jackson 


597 


3,178 


.43 


.49 


.47 


1,499 


1,575 


Jasper 


494 


1,979 


.50 


.50 


.56 


1,098 


967 


Jefferson 


571 


3,018 


.43 


.45 


.47 


1,424 


1,361 



* Number of pupils in average daily attendance in the county exclusive of pupils 
of 2,500 population or more, 
t Exclusive of Chicago. 



146 



FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 
TABLE XXII (Continued) 





S 1 ) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


(6) 


(7) 




Area 
(Sq. Mi.) 


Number 
of 
Rural \ 
Pupils* 




Criterion 

Correction 

Per Rural 

Pupil 


Sparsity 

Factor 

(Regressed 

Value) 


Predicted 
Sparsity 

Correction 
(Pupil 
Units) 




County 


/ Area 

/ No. 

/ Rural 

V Pupils 


Criterion 

Correction 

(Pupil 

Units) 


Jersey 


370 


1,420 


.51 


.51 


.57 


805 


724 


Jo Daviess 


611 


2,407 


.50 


.50 


.56 


1,336 


1,197 


Johnson 


345 


1,698 


.45 


.52 


.50 


841 


883 


Kane 


492 


3,167 


.39 


.48 


.42 


1,343 


1,526 


Kankakee 


674 


3,598 


.43 


.50 


.47 


1,697 


1,803 


Kendall 


320 


1,760 


.42 


.42 


.46 


809 


749 


Knox 


718 


3,235 


.47 


.57 


.52 


1,680 


1,860 


Lake 


389 


3,807 


.32 


.40 


.34 


1,297 


1,522 


La Salle 


1,135 


4,357 


.51 


.55 


.57 


2,470 


2,413 


Lawrence 


373 


2,571 


.38 


.34 


.41 


1,060 


869 


Lee 


726 


2,839 


.50 


.55 


.56 


1,576 


1,569 


Livingston 


1,039 


4,281 


.49 


.47 


.54 


2,325 


2,022 


Logan 


618 


2,291 


.52 


.63 


.58 


1,326 


1,464 


Macon 


567 


3,655 


.39 


.46 


.42 


1,550 


1,742 


Macoupin 


863 


4,077 


.46 


.54 


.51 


2,069 


2,235 


Madison 


706 


5,987 


.34 


.31 


.36 


2,183 


1,857 


Marion 


575 


4,142 


.37 


.38 


.40 


1,658 


1,597 


Marshall 


■' 395 


1,845 


.46 


.51 


.51 


936 


939 


Mason 


539 


1,966 


.52 


.56 


.58 


1,138 


1,115 


Massac 


• 245 


1,357 


.42 


.45 


.46 


624 


621 


McDonough 


579 


2,409 


.49 


.60 


.54 


1,308 


1,447 


McHenry 


605 


3,962 


.39 


.42 


.42 


1,680 


1,698 


McLean 


1,164 


5,701 


.45 


.53 


.50 


2,825 


3,076 


Menard 


311 


1,170 


.51 


.62 


.57 


663 


734 


Mercer 


555 


2,479 


.47 


.61 


.52 


1,287 


1,524 


Monroe 


379 


1,448 


.51 


.50 


.57 


821 


730 


Montgomery 


702 


2,508 


.52 


.58 


.58 


1,452 


1,466 


Morgan 


561 


2,578 


.46 


.49 


.51 


1,308 


1,264 


Moultrie 


344 


1,577 


.46 


.56 


.51 


800 


886 


Ogle 


754 


4,030 


.43 


.49 


.47 


1,901 


1,989 


Peoria 


609 


5,647 


.33 


.36 


.35 


1,992 


2,041 


Perry 


438 


1,891 


.48 


.46 


.53 


1,004 


886 


Piatt 


435 


2,312 


.43 


.52 


.47 


1,091 


1,207 


Pike 


828 


3,298 


.50 


.60 


.56 


1,830 


1,950 


Pope 


381 


1,089 


.59 


.60 


.66 


721 


653 


Pulaski 


203 


3,118 


.26 


.22 


.27 


840 


694 


Putnam 


166 


790 


.45 


.55 


.50 


391 


439 


Randolph 


591 


2,540 


.48 


.54 


.53 


1,349 


1,372 


Richland 


360 


1,421 


.50 


.61 


.56 


789 


870 


Rock Island 


403 


4,644 


.29 


.30 


.31 


1,417 


1,402 


St. Clair 


650 


6,321 


.32 


.32 


.34 


2,154 


2,075 


Saline 


381 


3,087 


.35 


.39 


.38 


1,162 


1,229 


Sangamon 


870 


5,637 


.39 


.40 


.42 


2,391 


2,276 


Schuyler 


433 


1,587 


.52 


.52 


.58 


919 


822 


Scott 


251 


1,183 


.46 


.48 


.51 


600 


570 


Shelby 


771 


3,327 


.48 


.56 


.53 


1,767 


1,888 



* Number of pupils in average daily attendance in the county exclusive of pupils in cities 
•of 2,500 population or more. 



APPENDIX I 
TABLE XXII (Continued) 



147 





(i) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


(6) 


(7) 




Area 
(Sq. Mi.) 


Number 
of 
Rural -\ 
Pupils* 




Criterion 

Correction 

Per Rural 

Pupil 


Sparsity 

Factor 

(Regressed 

Value) 


Predicted 

Sparsity 

Correction 

(Pupil 

Units) 




County 


/ Area 

/ No. 

J Rural 

V Pupils 


Criterion 

Correction 

(Pupil 

Units) 


Stark 


291 


1,527 


.43 


.60 


.47 


] 720 


914 


Stephenson 


563 


2,638 


.46 


.56 


.51 


1,339 


1,500 


Tazewell 


639 


5,972 


.33 


.31 


.35 


2,106 


1,887 


Union 


412 


2,512 


.40 


.45 


.44 


1,095 


1,141 


Vermilion 


883 


5,164 


.41 


.53 


.45 


2,313 


2,740 


Wabash 


219 


1,125 


.44 


.45 


.48 


544 


504 


Warren 


540 


1,945 


.52 


.55 


.58 


1,126 


1,083 


Washington 


565 


1,737 


.57 


.58 


.64 


1,109 


1.017 


Wayne 


714 


2,717 


.51 


.56 


.57 


1,540 


1,535 


White 


500 


2,586 


.44 


.53 


.48 


1,251 


1.394 


Whiteside 


686 


2,933 


.48 


.54 


.53 


1,558 


1.602 


Will 


837 


5,957 


.37 


.34 


.40 


2,385 


2,024 


Williamson 


434 


3,902 


.33 


.39 


.35 


1,376 


1.549 


Winnebago 


507 


7,290 


.26 


22 


.27 


1,964 


1,587 


Woodford 


537 


3,102 


.41 


.47 


.45 


1,389 


1,476 



* Number of pupils in average daily attendance in the county exclusive of pupils in cities 
of 2,500 population or more. 

County, each rural pupil is surrounded by an average area of .2993 square 
miles. The distance across a square area is equal to the square root of 
the area itself. Therefore, the distance across an area of .2993 square 
miles is .54 of a mile. Since the rural pupils of this county are surrounded 
by an average of .2993 square miles of area per pupil, we can say that 
they are separated by an average distance of .54 miles. It will be noted 
that this average distance varies among all counties from .20 of a mile 
in Cook County to .59 in Pope County. 

The average distances between rural pupils as shown in Column 3 
were correlated with the criterion shown in Column 4, expressed as 
amount of correction per rural pupil. The result was a correlation co- 
efficient of .93. The regression equation, with criterion values regressed 
upon the distances between pupils (sparsity), was as follows: 

X 1 = 1.19X, — .04 

The regressed value or sparsity factor of each county is shown in Column 
5. When this factor was multiplied by the number of rural pupils in 
Column 2, the result was the predicted sparsity correction shown in Col- 
umn 6. It is interesting to note that the predicted corrections shown in 
Column 6 correlate .973 with the criterion values shown in Column 7. 
The distribution of the counties according to the sparsity of rural 
pupils and the corresponding correction per pupil is shown in Chart 22. 
The horizontal scale represents the sparsity or average distance between 



70% 



o 
a 

"5 

E 



60% 



a 

3 

a. 

| 50% 



o 

t 40% 

ro 



a. 
II 



30% 



£ 20% 



10% 



0% 











• • i> • / 










<£• • • 


• 
• 








• 

• 
•< 


•••f^» • • • 

— Pi • 

:/ • •* 

• 








•J 


• 








• / 














X -.04 
2 








1 















.10 



.20 



30 



40 



.50 



.60 



*>=Vi 



Area of County (sq. mi.) 



No. Rural Pupils in ADA. 



CHART 22. Distribution of Illinois Counties According to 
Sparsity of Rural Pupils and Percentage 
Increase in Normal per Capita Costs 






APPENDIX I 



149 



rural pupils. The vertical scale represents the correction (criterion) per 
rural pupil. In this chart rather than expressing the correction as a frac- 
tion of a pupil, it is expressed another way as percentage increase in nor- 
mal per capita costs for rural pupils. 

The Simplified Formula Utilizing Sparsity in Terms 

of Average Number of Rural Pupils 

per Square Mile 

From experience with sparsity formulas in other states, it has been 
observed that many people found it difficult to understand mathematical 
formulas involving square roots. Therefore, this measure of sparsity has 
been shifted to the more commonly understood form, namely the average 
number of rural pupils per square mile of land area. 

The computations involved in this shift are shown in Table XXIII. 



TABLE XXIII 

Sparsity Correction Translated into Simplified Form 
Based on Density of Population, 1946-1947 



County 


(i) 

Number of 
Rural Pupils 
Per Sq. Mile 


(2) 

Sparsity 
Factor* 


(3) 

Density 
Factor** 


(4) 

Predicted 

Correction 

from Density 

Factor 


(5) 

Criterion 
Correction 


Adams 


3.3407 


.6026 


.5806 


1,668 


1,727 


Alexander 


8.5636 


.3646 


.3633 


684 


737 


Bond 


4.5707 


.5074 


.5108 


892 


917 


Boone 


4.4107 


.5193 


.5199 


642 


621 


Brown 


3.3941 


.6026 


.5776 


602 


572 


Bureau 


5.0603 


.4836 


.4831 


2,110 


2,185 


Calhoun 


4.1660 


.5431 


.5338 


576 


621 


Carroll 


5.1247 


.4836 


.4794 


1,142 


1,158 


Cass 


3.9593 


.5550 


.5455 


797 


767 


Champaign 


4.8419 


.4955 


.4955 


2,382 


2,420 


Christian 


4.7734 


.4955 


.4993 


1,683 


1,599 


Clark 


3.9024 


.5550 


.5487 


1,075 


1,093 


Clay 


4.5866 


.5074 


.5099 


1,080 


1,069 


Clinton 


4.4708 


.5193 


.5165 


1,148 


1,180 


Coles 


4.1140 


.5431 


.5367 


1,104 


1,174 


Cookt 


23.9468 


.1980 


.1803 


3,411 


3,682 


Crawford 


8.8798 


.3527 


.3551 


1,391 


1,240 


Cumberland 


4.9856 


.4836 


.4873 


843 


871 


De Kalb 


4.1504 


.5431 


.5347 


1,387 


1,582 


De Witt 


4.6977 


.5074 


.5036 


939 


1,031 


Douglas 


6.5227 


.4241 


.4164 


1,138 


1,118 


Du Page 


17.1818 


.2456 


.2382 


1,216 


1,326 


Edgar 


3.7184 


.5669 


.5592 


1,300 


1,427 


Edwards 


5.8933 


.4479 


.4358 


578 


523 



* From original Sparsity Formula. 
** Completed from simplified formula. 
t Exclusive of Chicago. 



150 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 



TABLE XXIII (Continued) 



County 


(l) 

Number of 
Rural Pupils 
Per Sq. Mile 


(2) 

Sparsity 
Factor* 


(3) 

Density 
Factor** 


(4) 

Predicted 

Correction 

from Density 

Factor 


(5) 

Criterion 
Correction 


Effingham 


4.9210 


.4955 


.4910 


1,162 


1,161 


Fayette 


4.4944 


.5193 


.5152 


1,658 


1,669 


Ford 


4.0969 


.5431 


.5377 


1,068 


1,206 


Franklin 


9.7247 


.3408 


.3332 


1,377 


1,565 


Fulton 


6.2207 


.4360 


.4243 


2,296 


2,447 


Gallatin 


5.5732 


.4598 


.4540 


830 


829 


Greene 


4.2597 


.5312 


.5285 


1,213 


1,126 


Grundy 


4.5814 


.5074 


.5102 


1,005 


1,107 


Hamilton 


3.5783 


.5788 


.5671 


881 


913 


Hancock 


4.8103 


.4955 


.4973 


1,904 


2,066 


Hardin 


8.6667 


.3646 


.3607 


572 


599 


Henderson 


3.7533 


.5669 


.5572 


797 


889 


Henry 


4.0680 


.5550 


.5393 


1,806 


1,735 


Iroquois 


3.8714 


.5550 


.5505 


2,387 


2,771 


Jackson 


5.3233 


.4717 


.4682 


1,488 


1,575 


Jasper 


4.0061 


.5550 


.5429 


1,074 


967 


Jefferson 


5.2855 


.4717 


.4703 


1,419 


1,361 


Jersey 


3.8378 


.5669 


.5524 


784 


724 


Jo Daviess 


3.9394 


.5550 


.5466 


1,316 


1,197 


Johnson 


4.9217 


.4955 


.4909 


834 


883 


Kane 


6.4370 


.4241 


.4186 


1,326 


1,526 


Kankakee 


5.3383 


.4717 


.4673 


1,681 


1,803 


Kendall 


5.5000 


.4598 


.4581 


806 


749 


Knox 


4.5056 


.5193 


.5145 


1,664 


1,860 


Lake 


9.7866 


.3408 


.3315 


1,262 


1,522 


La Salle 


3.8388 


.5669 


.5523 


2,406 


2,413 


Lawrence 


6.8928 


.4122 


.4068 


1,046 


869 


Lee 


3.9105 


.5550 


.5483 


1,557 


1,569 


Livingston 


4.1203 


.5431 


.5364 


2,296 


2,022 


Logan 


3.7071 


.5788 


.5598 


1,283 


1,464 


Macon 


6.4393 


.4241 


.4186 


1,530 


1,742 


Macoupin 


4.7242 


.5074 


.5021 


2,047 


2,235 


Madison 


8.4802 


.3646 


.3655 


2,188 


1,857 


Marion 


7.2035 


.4003 


.3987 


1,651 


1,597 


Marshall 


4.6709 


.5074 


.5052 


932 


939 


Mason 


3.6475 


.5788 


.5632 


1,107 


1,115 


Massac 


5.5388 


.4598 


.4560 


619 


621 


McDonough 


4.1606 


.5431 


.5341 


1,287 


1,447 


McHenry 


6.5488 


.4241 


.4157 


1,647 


1,698 


McLean 


4.8978 


.4955 


.4923 


2,807 


3,076 


Menard 


3.7621 


.5669 


.5567 


651 


734 


Mercer 


4.4667 


.5193 


.5167 


1,281 


1,524 


Monroe 


3.8206 


.5669 


.5534 


801 


730 


Montgomery 


3.5726 


.5788 


.5674 


1,423 


1,466 


Morgan 


4.5954 


.5074 


.5094 


1,313 


1,264 


Moultrie 


4.5843 


.5074 


.5101 


804 


886 


Ogle 


5.3448 


.4717 


.4669 


1,882 


1,989 


Peoria 


9.2726 


.3527 


.3449 


1,948 


2,041 



From original Sparsity Formula. 
Completed from simplified formula. 







APPENDIX 


1 




151 




TABLE XXIII (Coi 


itinued ) 






County 


(i) 

Number of 
Rural Pupils 
Per Sq. Mile 


(2) 

Sparsity 
Factor* 


(3) 

Density 
Factor** 


(4) 

Predicted 

Correction 

from Density 

Factor 


(5) 

Criterion 
Correction 


Perry 


4.3174 


.5312 


.5252 


993 


886 


Piatt 


5.3149 


.4717 


.4686 


1,083 


1,207 


Pike 


3.9831 


.5550 


.5442 


1,795 


1,950 


Pope 


2.8583 


.6621 


.6000 


653 


653 


Pulaski 


15.3596 


.2694 


2564 


799 


694 


Putnam 


4.7590 


.4955 


.5002 


395 


439 


Randolph 


4.2978 


.5312 


.5263 


1,337 


1,372 


Richland 


3.9472 


.5550 


.5462 


776 


870 


Rock Island 


11.5236 


.3051 


.2948 


1,369 


1,402 


St. Clair 


9.7246 


.3408 


.3332 


2,106 


2,075 


Saline 


8.1024 


.3765 


.3753 


1,159 


1,229 


Sangamon 


6.4793 


.4241 


.4175 


2,353 


2,276 


Schuyler 


3.6651 


.5788 


.5622 


892 


822 


Scott 


4.7131 


.5074 


.5028 


595 


570 


Shelby 


4.3152 


.5312 


.5253 


1,748 


1,888 


Stark 


5.2474 


.4717 


.4725 


722 


914 


Stephenson 


4.6856 


.5074 


.5043 


1,330 


1,500 


Tazewell 


9.3459 


.3527 


.3430 


2,048 


1,887 


Union 


6.0971 


.4360 


.4275 


1,074 


1,141 


Vermilion 


5.8482 


.4479 


.4384 


2,264 


2,740 


Wabash 


5.1370 


.4836 


.4787 


539 


504 


Warren 


3.6019 


.5788 


.5658 


1,100 


1,083 


Washington 


3.0743 


.6383 


.5957 


1,035 


1,017 


Wayne 


3.8053 


.5669 


.5542 


1,506 


1,535 


White 


5.1720 


.4836 


.4767 


1,233 


1,394 


Whiteside 


4.2755 


.5312 


.5276 


1,547 


1,602 


Will 


7.1171 


.4003 


.4010 


2,389 


2,024 


Williamson 


8.9908 


.3527 


.3522 


1,374 


1,549 


Winnebago 


14.3787 


.2694 


.2662 


1,941 


1,587 


Woodford 


5.7765 


.4479 


.4425 


1,373 


1,476 



* From original Sparsity Formula. 
** Completed from simplified formula. 

The average number of rural pupils per square mile in each county, 
shown in Column 1, was obtained from the data already reported in 
Columns 1 and 2 of Table XXII. The sparsity factor shown in Column 
2 was used as the criterion correction per rural pupil. This figure, it will 
be noted, was the predicted value obtained from the preceding formula 
and reported in Column 5 of Table XXII. 

A distribution of the counties according to the figures in Columns 1 
and 2 of Table XXIII is shown in Chart 23. The horizontal scale repre- 
sents the sparsity of rural pupils expressed as density Or number of pupils 
per square mile. The vertical scale is the sparsity factor computed from 
the original formula. It is expressed here as the percentage increase in per 
capita cost of a foundation program for the rural pupils. Dots represent 





a 


, 


3 


w 


n 


o 




u 


"5 


<0 


3 


Q. 


a: 




o 


w 




0) 

n 


E 




m 


r 






TO 





O 


TO 


a. 


id 






c 


<j 


o 








■*- 




m 


o 


TJ 


O) 


r 


•*- 


3 

o 





u. 








(D 


4) 


. , 


a. 


o 



152 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 
70% 



60% 



50% 



40% 



30% 



20% 



10% 



0% 



1 


• 
• 














































*!»• 














































<•* 


























Xj 


^X = 0.7700- 0.0567X„ 




























or 


















































l» 




is* 












































^X = 0.5860-0.0260X 






























Xf 1 2 
































•&• 


|*« 






















































■s^t-X, =0.4100- 0.0I00X. 
































m** 














d 


































«■* « 






























X =0. 3000- 0.0050X — -*" 






























1 




2 























































2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2425 
X 2 S Number of Rural Pupils per Square Mile 

CHART 23. Distribution of Illinois Counties According to 
Density of Rural Pupils and Percentage 
Increase in Cost of a Foundation Program 



counties. In some cases one dot represents more than one county because 
of proximity of coordinate values. It is noted that the distribution is cur- 
vilinear in nature, and therefore a single line of best fit would be a mathe- 
matical equation of higher order. This complexity is avoided by using 
several straight-line segments. Then, the regression formula becomes a 
series of simple first-degree equations, as stated earlier in the chapter 
describing the computation of the sparsity correction for the year 1947- 
1948. The formula stated in mathematical terms is as follows: 

1. For counties with an average of 6 or fewer rural pupils per square 
mile: X ± = 0.7700 — 0.0567X 2 . 



APPENDIX I 153 

2. For counties with an average of more than 6 rural pupils per 
square mile, but not more than 11: X 1 = 0.5860 — 0.0260X,. 

3. For counties with an average of more than 11 rural pupils per 
square mile, but not more than 22: X r = 0.4100 — 0.0100X 2 . 

4. For counties with an average of more than 22 rural pupils per 
square mile: X 1 = 0.3000 — 0.0050X 2 . 

Again referring to Table XXIII, it will be noted that this table shows 
the computations of translating the original sparsity formula into a sim- 
plified sparsity formula based on a commonly understood measure of den- 
sity. Therefore, the term "density" is used in Columns 3 and 4 to dis- 
tinguish between the two formulas. The density factors shown in Col- 
umn 3 were obtained by applying the foregoing algebraic equations to 
the data in Column 1. Column 4 shows the predicted correction in total 
numbers of pupil units, computed by multiplying the density factor 
shown in Column 3 by the number of rural pupils already shown in Col- 
umn 2 of Table XXII. The criterion shown in Column 5 is the same one 
used in the original formula. It is interesting to note that the correlation 
between the criterion and the estimated values from the simplified 
formula is .976. 

It is pointed out that the latter formula based on a simple measure of 
density may be called a density formula. If this terminology is used, it 
is observed from Chart 23 that the denser the rural school population, the 
less is the extra per capita cost for these children. That is to say, extra 
costs are inversely related to density of population. On the other hand, 
if the terminology of sparsity is applied to the same percentage increases 
in cost, we note, as observed in Chart 22, that extra costs are directly 
related to sparsity of population. Therefore, the sparser the population, 
the greater are the extra costs. For reasons of convenience, the latter 
formula is defined as a sparsity formula utilizing a simple measure of 
population density as one variable. This terminology, while not affect- 
ing computations, should lend clarity to the concept of sparsity effect on 
school cost. It is believed that laymen can more readily understand 
that where a county has, on the average, few rural pupils per square 
mile, these children are more widely scattered and, therefore, more ex- 
pensive to give the same education than are the rural pupils in a county 
with an average of many pupils per square mile. 



APPENDIX II 

TECHNICAL NOTES ON DEVELOPING 
METHODS OF ESTIMATING SCHOOL 
TRANSPORTATION COST IN THE 
STATE OF ILLINOIS 

In the beginning of this study it was believed that measurable char- 
acteristics of population distribution might afford an accurate and use- 
ful method for estimating a fair allowance of school transportation cost 
in rural areas. The most obvious measure appeared to be one utilizing 
statistics on family dwellings shown on official county maps. Data were 
not available to indicate the distribution of school children needing 
transportation. Since it seemed reasonable to assume a high correlation 
between the number of children and the number of houses within dis- 
tricts, it appeared that transportation cost might be predicted directly 
from data on houses, easily obtained by inspecting maps. 

A Criterion of Cost 

The pragmatic test was applied to actual school districts most nearly 
comparable to the hypothetical ones defined in the beginning of this 
study. Thirty-one community unit districts cooperated in preparing 
maps showing complete location of pupils. These and about 70 other 
districts furnished detailed data on cost of transportation in operation 
in 1947-1948. Several districts furnished data on estimated costs for 
1948-1949 based on operation for three months in the fall of 1948. Analy- 
sis of the data submitted revealed a useful cost unit for comparative 
purposes; namely, the cost per bus mile for buses of various seating 
capacities. The unit selected for use in developing the criterion was the 
median cost per bus mile for district-owned buses of various seating 
capacities. 

On each map of the 31 school districts potential bus routes were laid 
out with the following criteria in mind: (1) There would be door-to-door 
pickups of children. (2) All children in the district would be transported 
to the largest village or city (called the school district center). (3) The 
length of a given route was limited as nearly as possible to 20 miles 
one way. (4) Types of routes were planned as might be expected under 
actual situations. For example, most routes were the circular type; i.e., 
originating at the school center, moving out into the rural area and circ- 
ling back. Some routes were the linear type, commonly called the shoe- 
string route; i.e., beginning farthest from the school center and traveling 
toward the school. Starting points of the latter type were located in 

[154] 



APPENDIX II 155 

outlying congested areas. (5) Sizes of buses for the estimates were 
limited to from 28 to 46 seats. 

Chart 24 shows a map of a sample school district with proposed bus 

routes. In this particular district it was estimated that the total number 
of annual (180 days) bus miles adjusted to be equivalent in cost to 40- 
passenger buses was 69,483. At the rate of 24 cents per mile this total 
mileage would cost $16,670. An allowance of $1000 for operating an 
emergency bus, when added, gave a total estimate of $17,676. This 
amount was the criterion cost for this district. In similar manner a cri- 
terion was estimated for all districts of the sample. 

Factors Related to the Criterion Cost 

Characteristics of rural school population, density, and pattern of 
dispersion, were found to be highly associated with the criterion of 
transportation cost. These characteristics were reflected in the number 
of family dwellings per given area in rural territory and the nature of 
their dispersion. Statistical data were readily available for correlating 
measures of population density and nature of dispersion with the cri- 
terion. A summary of these correlations is shown in Table XXIV. It 
will be noted that the criterion, the dependent variable, was expressed in 
several forms: (1) total cost to the district in dollars, and (2) cost per 
dwelling in the area outside the school center, and (3) cost per trans- 
portable pupil. Chart 25 shows the distribution of the 31 sample school 
districts according to the criterion values of transportation cost and the 
sums of dwelling-to-school distances. The counterpart of this distribution 
for pupils is shown in Chart 26. 

Methods of Estimation 

Two methods were developed in this study for inferring transportation 
cost in rural areas from family dwellings designated on official highway 
maps. These methods utilize the first two regression formulas shown in 
Column 5 of Table XXIV. Formula I, using summations of dwelling- 
to-school distances, was selected for the purpose of estimating the cost 
for the entire state. It was chosen in preference to the second formula 
chiefly because of its apparent advantages when applied to small rural 
areas contiguous to large metropolitan centers. For typically rural dis- 
tricts the second formula would produce equally good results. Actually, 
when it was applied to the sample of 31 districts the estimated values 
correlated .95 with the total criterion cost, whereas the predictive values 
obtained from the first formula correlated .93. 

The formula described and used in the main body of this report 
utilized the factor of population density in the form of distances of 



1 v v 



— I 



I 



. I 



n 5 



*h 



— «-tt • — r 1 — i H 




I t ■" ' ♦ 'A t " 



CHART 24. Potential Bus Routes of Stewardson 
Community Unit School District 

Starting Point of Route • Turning Point 



School District Center 



District Boundary 



APPENDIX II 



157 



9 to 
.2 * 

'to "3 
to R 



tf 



> 



CO. 
< 



K 
K 
O 

U 

fa 
o 

< 

P 



to 3 




"S .2 


CO 


°3 


— * flS 




C **-» ,—5 




iE°» 


II 


0) --• 


° ,2 


J-. 


o o 





-§_2* 

-2 - 

CD OS I 

J cj » 



25 



"S3 

a; t3 
tt'C 
Oi cti 

P> 



ccj u 



CO 

co 

US 

I© 

+ 

to 

o 

CO 



CO 

+ 

•*# lO 
O CO 
lO o 
lO o 



00 

o 
«@ 

+ 

OS 
CX) 



+ 



i-i in 

o ^ 

T-H O 

CD i-j 



* * 



X M 



NOWOO 
CM CO CD "5 
f» CO rH t~- 

eoiONCO 



00 CO O CD 
CM OJ 00 CO 
OHNiO 
^ lO ■* »o 

l' I 



oj to 

^ CD 

p5 



" O 

!•§ 

3 o 
CO CO 



.a cd 

— j fc-. 

P co 



rt CD O CD 

.3 +» O -f 3 

rt <D O CD 

O ucoo 

'■^ -u> OJ -£ 

Oh t. *J CO 

O cc) 3 • - 

PhJOQ 



H 



* 



o, to 

3.2 



°o 
Si 

3 o 
CO CO 



ii „ g 

S'S.1 

£&<CO 



-. — - 

(D O CD 

a ^ a 

CD o <D 

,OcoO 

' +-> CD -^ 

CD •- T! 






J- ^T CO 

►40Q 



H 



* 



to 

® rs u 

P s-S 
uOq 

an 
CD "^ 



o 
O 



Hi"ffi t5 



HP U.9coO 



CD O 
O, P. 

to „, 

O t. 3 



HP OHPh 






?40 



r HU 






















/• 


35 — 














































"5T 
























-n 
























c 
















/ 


• 






ro 
























1/1 
























3 
























o 
























_c 
























1- 
























r* o c 
























is. 1 










• 














c 
























o 
























"^ 












•/ 












fl) 
























-»- 
























o 
a 










/ 














V) 
























m n n 
























2 c\j 
























r- 








• 








































O 








• 
















10 

O 




• 






4 


1 












U 
























TJ 










• 














2. 15 

f0 




























• 1 


















E 
























*,^ 
























LU 




• 
• 


•• 


• 
















10 




/ 1 
























1 






















* • 


• 




















/• 


• 




















C 


/ • 















































23456789 
Dwelling-to-School Distances (in Thousands of Miles) 



10 



CHART 25. Distribution of 31 Community Unit Districts 

According to Estimated Cost of Transportation 
and Dwelling-to-School Distances 



1 



7=1 .. 














OD 




























ji OVJ 














<0 
U) 

3 
O 

-C 

H 








• 






c 














n OF 














.2 <-3 

ra 

+- 
k. 
o 
a 
i/> 
c 

(0 

u 
H 
.. on 






• 








*- 
in 
O 
U 






/ • 








O 

4- 

18 

E 1^ 




• 
• 


/ 








VI 
Ul 














10— 




• /• # • 












• • 












•^ 


• 












^ • 












q 


/ • 












O 

n 















1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 

Pupil-to-School Distances 



5,000 



6,000 



CHART 26. Distribution of 31 Community Unit Districts 
According to Estimated Cost of 
Transportation and Pupil-to-School Distances 



160 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

houses from a given school site. The nature of dispersion of population 
also was taken into some account by these distances. In the second 
formula, density of population was expressed as number of dwellings per 
square mile of land area in the school district. Costs could be predicted 
accurately enough from this measure alone if all districts had an even 
distribution of population as illustrated in Chart 17, in Chapter VIII. 
But this was not the case. Districts varied all the way from an even 
distribution of population to much clustering of population as shown in 
Chart 18. It has been generally known that concentration of popula- 
tion has the effect of reducing the per capita cost of transportation. 
This effect has been noted in other studies in relation to total per 
capita cost of education. 1 Therefore, an attempt was made to find a way 
of measuring the effect of this clustering on transportation cost. The sta- 
tistic used for this test was the population in the largest village, exclud- 
ing the school district center. Population count was used for this variable 
because it was easily obtained, whereas an accurate count of houses in 
such areas was impossible to secure. This substitution was possible be- 
caue of a high correlation between dwellings and population. 

Theory of Formula II. The general theory behind this formula ex- 
tends from a visual analysis of charts similar to Charts 17 and 18. By 
reference to these charts it may be seen that the maps used in this study 
are gridded off into one-mile squares. On the assumption that the number 
of dwellings is inclined to distribute in the same pattern as school chil- 
dren, it stands to reason that there are basically two elements which 
should account for the bulk of the distribution factor as it bears upon 
school transportation costs. These are: (1) the average density of 
dwellings, in effect pupils, in the total area, and (2) the amount of clus- 
tering of the population. Quite aside from the distribution pattern, the 
more children in a district of a given number of square miles the closer 
the children are together, the shorter the hauls to pick up a given number 
of children; and as it may be expected, therefore, the less the cost. 

The average number of dwellings per square miles, however, does not 
reflect the distribution pattern. For instance, on one extreme would be a 
district in which all of the dwellings would be concentrated in one of the 
square-mile areas in the district. In such a case, there would be no 
cost of transportation. On the other extreme, the situation which would 
represent the maximum diffusion, or distribution, such as to require a 
maximum of transportation expense, would be a district in which was 

1 McLure, William P. The Effect of Population Sparsity on School Costs. New 
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947, p. 23. 

Morrison, J. C, and Butterworth, J. E., Directors. The Intermediate District in 
New York State — Special Studies. Albany: The University of the State of New 
York, Bulletin Number 1356, 194S, p. 109. 



APPENDIX II 161 

exactly in each square mile section the same number of dwellings. Under 
the latter situation, the distribution of school children would be just 
as widely diffused as possible. This obviously would require the most 
mileage, or the maximum transportation coverage of the district in order 
to pick up the children. At the same time it would represent a situation 
in which the greatest number of school children who live in the dwellings 
would be at the most disadvantageous locations with reference to any 
school center. 

The concept leading to the formulation of this estimate was that 
there is a well known means of measuring the extent to which the dwell- 
ing count in each of the cells of a map in a district would vary from the 
most expensive (diffuse) situation to the opposite extreme where no 
transportation would be required. The basic statistical measure involved 
is the chi-square. 

If we let X = the number of dwellings in any cell (one square-mile) 
of the district map and N = the number of cells (square miles) in the 
district, then X = 2X/N = average number of dwellings per square 
mile density. 

(x-xy 

Using chi-square as a measure of dispersion, X 2 = % x ma ^ 

be seen that under these conditions, X 2 = NXC.V. 2 where C.V. = <r/X, 
the coefficient of variation. 

Now, a measure such as the one above would tend to show degree of 
concentration or clustering of dwellings in a district. It would be higher 
in the district shown in Chart 18 than in the district shown in Chart 17. 
The greater the clustering in a given district, the less the transportation 
cost per pupil, other things being equal. 

In experimenting with various measures of dispersion, among them 
the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation, it was observed 
that the range was about as indicative of this clustering element as the 
others. Since, in virtually all districts, the square mile with the fewest 
dwellings was one with zero, one, or two dwellings, the lower limit could 
be eliminated to advantage in computing the range. The resulting meas- 
ure, therefore, was simply the population of the largest square mile 
outside the district center. In practical terms this was the population of 
the largest village outside the school district center. 

The above measure has the advantage of being much simpler to com- 
pute than any measure of dispersion involving the summing of squares. 
The contribution of X was taken into account by using it as a separate 
independent variable. Each of the two measures logically reflects varia- 
tions in transportation cost, per dwelling (or the equivalent per pupil), 



162 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

not aggregate cost, since obviously in addition to these quantitative fac- 
tors there remains the dimension of sheer size of district, i.e., the total 
number of square miles and the total number of dwellings. 

Formulas III and IV. Formulas III and IV in Table XXIV are coun- 
terparts of I and II. They are shown for their implications on the prob- 
lem of measuring the cost of this service where pupil data might be a 
more suitable form than housing data would be. For example, pupil 
data might be more suitable for estimating potential transportation cost 
in local districts or in developing a plan of estimating transportation 
needs in a state school finance plan. 



APPENDIX II 163 

Summary Data 

Summary data are shown in the remaining tables. Table XXV pre- 
sents the basic data used in developing Formula II. Table XXVI pre- 
sents the basic data used in developing Formulas II and III. Table 
XXVII presents the estimates of potential transportation cost at 1948 
prices computed by the four formulas developed in this study for the 
sample of 31 community unit districts. 



TABLE XXV 

Basic Data Used in Developing A Second Formula 

for Estimating Transportation Cost 



District 


(i) 

Number 
Dwellings 
per Sq. Mi. 


(2) 

Population* 

in Largest 

Center Outside 

School Center 


(3) 

The Criterion 
(Cost per 
Dwelling) 


(4) 

Number 

of 
Dwellings 


Mount Auburn 


3.45 


70 


$36.92 


270 


Pana 


4.71 


278 


34.89 


704 


Stonington 


3.77 


35 


36.19 


255 


Taylorville 


5.72 


366 


31.38 


695 


Marshall 


5.38 


120 


24.91 


1,151 


Oakland 


4.69 


148 


32.01 


407 


Farmer City 


3.79 


46 


42.41 


410 


Wapella 


4.91 


49 


42.95 


288 


Weldon 


3.46 


25 


37.53 


195 


Kansas 


5.18 


226 


25.34 


687 


Paris 


5.45 


312 


27.94 


1,327 


Albion 


6.25 


337 


19.72 


811 


West Salem 


6.35 


385 


20.11 


575 


Argenta 


4.46 


77 


32.30 


387 


Blue Mound 


4.51 


56 


31.77 


327 


Cerro Gordo 


6.42 


271 


28.46 


671 


Blandinsville 


4.35 


32 


27.42 


313 


Good Hope 


5.04 


156 


21.45 


353 


Bushnell 


6.22 


575 


26.91 


856 


Colchester 


6.11 


243 


17.72 


553 


Industry 


4.71 


99 


30.47 


631 


Sullivan 


5.69 


240 


29.29 


731 


Atwood 


7.19 


384 


26.38 


336 


Monticello 


4.10 


357 


33.66 


539 


Barry 


4.64 


158 


32.43 


455 


Athens 


5.61 


585 


21.67 


531 


Auburn 


3.27 


56 


30.76 


185 


Findlay 


4.33 


46 


32.32 


341 


Stewardson 


5.46 


435 


24.83 


712 


Windsor 


5.38 


261 


25.69 


572 


Bethany 


5.23 


354 


25.96 


438 



1940 Population. 



164 FINANCING EDUCATION IN EFFICIENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS 



TABLE XXVI 

Basic Data Used in Developing Formulas III and IV 

for Estimating Transportation Cost 



District 


(i) 

No. Pupils* 

per Square 

Mile 


(2) 
No. Pupils 
in Largest 
Center Out- 
side Dist. 
Center 


(3) 

Number of 

Transportable 

Pupils* 


(4) 

Sum of Pupil- 
to-School 
Distances 
(One Way) 


(5) 

The Criterion 
(Cost per 
Pupil) 


Mount Auburn 


3.3 


14 


258 


1,214 


$38.63 


Pana 


3.2 


56 


488 


3,361 


50.32 


Stonington 


2.5 


10 


170 


673 


52.90 


Taylorville 


4.1 


73 


503 


3,223 


43.30 


Marshall 


2.1 


22 


443 


3,256 


64.71 


Oakland 


3.0 


15 


250 


1,079 


52.10 


Farmer City 


2.5 


32 


309 


1,400 


56.26 


Wapella 


4.3 


12 


252 


1,290 


62.09 


Weldon 


2.5 


9 


140 


593 


52.29 


Kansas 


2.8 


45 


368 


2,762 


47.29 


Paris 


3.0 


62 


723 


5,803 


5129 


Albion 


2.4 


67 


310 


1,636 


51.60 


West Salem 


3.1 


77 


287 


1,552 


40.29 


Argenta 


3.5 


28 


302 


1,817 


41.39 


Blue Mound 


2.4 


12 


175 


1,023 


59.37 


Cerro Gordo 


4.1 


48 


451 


2,598 


42.34 


Blandinsville 


2.6 


10 


186 


894 


46.14 


Good Hope 


2.8 


31 


196 


930 


38.62 


Bushnell 


3.8 


115 


519 


3,263 


44.40 


Colchester 


2.3 


49 


211 


1,083 


46.44 


Industry 


2.8 


12 


370 


2,955 


51.97 


Sullivan 


3.1 


48 


399 


2,480 


53.66 


Atwood 


4.4 


53 


207 


1,483 


42.82 


Monticello 


3.1 


71 


413 


2,853 


43.93 


Barry 


2.6 


32 


264 


1,530 


55.90 


Athens 


3.6 


107 


339 


1,889 


33.94 


Auburn 


2.3 


11 


130 


483 


43.77 


Findlay 


2.6 


9 


201 


1,092 


54.83 


Stewardson 


3.5 


97 


450 


2,521 


39.29 


Windsor 


3.0 


52 


321 


1,673 


45.77 


Bethany 


2.9 


71 


244 


1,452 


46.62 



Meaning number of pupils over 1 % miles outside school district center. 



APPENDIX II 



165 



TABLE XXVII 

Estimated Cost of Transportation 

for 31 Representative Community Unit Districts 

Computed by Formulas I, II, III, and IV 





(l) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 






Values from 


Values from 






Formulas Based 


Formulas Based 


District 


The Criterion 


on 


Family 


on Transportable 




Value 


Dwellings 




Pupils 




I 


II 


III 


IV 


Mount Auburn 


$ 9,968 


$ 9,638 


$ 9,585 


$11,064 


$13,634 


Pana 


24,560 


19,737 


21,324 


23,471 


22.701 


Stonington 


8,992 


8,817 


8,794 


7,937 


9,011 


Taylorville 


21,778 


18,905 


18,348 


22,673 


21,347 


Marshall 


28,668 


29,935 


32,768 


22,890 


23,408 


Oakland 


13,027 


10,712 


12,543 


10,283 


12,800 


Farmer City 


17,386 


11,061 


14,095 


12,138 


15,691 


Wapella 


12,369 


9,505 


8,752 


11,502 


12,123 


Weldon 


7,319 


7,961 


6,945 


7,475 


7,436 


Kansas 


17,404 


20,274 


19,792 


20,009 


17,914 


Paris 


37,074 


37,381 


36,558 


37,583 


33,568 


Albion 


15,993 


19,566 


19,966 


13,503 


14,721 


West Salem 


11,560 


14,788 


13,857 


13,016 


12,814 


Argenta 


12,500 


12,144 


12,341 


14,548 


14,671 


Blue Mound 


10,389 


11 ,245 


10,392 


9,960 


9,296 


Cerro Gordo 


19,093 


16,701 


16,271 


19,061 


20,285 


Blandinsville 


8,581 


10,077 


10,153 


9,214 


9,811 


Good Hope 


7,569 


10,186 


10,431 


9,422 


9,819 


Bushnell 


23,039 


22,148 


20,449 


22,904 


20,220 


Colchester 


9,799 


14,176 


14,073 


10,306 


10,461 


Industry 


19,229 


19,138 


19,510 


21,125 


19,251 


Sullivan 


21,411 


18,837 


19,700 


18,379 


18,98S 


Atwood 


8,863 


12,035 


7,096 


12,617 


9,043 


Monticello 


18,141 


15,503 


18,045 


20,534 


18.692 


Barry 


14,756 


13,319 


14,086 


12,889 


13,337 


Athens 


11,507 


13,799 


13,816 


14.964 


13,661 


Auburn 


5,691 


7,475 


6,695 


6,839 


6,947 


Findlay 


11,021 


10,572 


11,068 


10,358 


10,624 


Stewardson 


17,676 


17,871 


19,280 


18,617 


18,706 


Windsor 


14,695 


14,584 


16,004 


13,716 


15231 


Bethany 


11,375 


13,085 


12,342 


12,439 


11,170